Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters6/10It was pretty good, but they could have swore less and cut out one 10 second nudity scene for a slightly lower rating without messing up the story at all. That would have increased the audience and they would have made more money.

Just re-watched "the Lorax" with my daughter. She loves it, one of the few movies that really seems to impact her emotionally. For adults, it's a little bit more beat you over the head anti-capitolism,but still enjoyable or tall that. The story was true to the original in spirit and rhyme. Hard to rate. If you have kids to see it with 8/10, if you are an adult with little interest in kiddie type miovies, 6/9.

Saw this about a week ago. Some funny parts in first hour, but the plot sort of stalled in the second half. The primary relationship did not develop on screen and the whole betting scenario seemed a bolt-on gimmick to bring in the entire cast for a formulaic non humorous ending. It tried hard for "dysfunctional humor" but more of the latter and less of the former needed here.

History of the Eagles (Showtime)

9/10

Anyone familiar with the band will likely enjoy this story. Interesting blend of antagonism and creative collaboration with very talented artists meandering over four decades. Some very straight-forward takes from Henley, Frey, Walsh, et al. The story almost tells itself and the writers were careful in avoiding hyperbole. I highly recommend this documentary.

This is a black and white silent movie produced by the H P Lovecraft Historical Society. In other words, it's essentially a fan film. Taken as such, it's not a bad little gem. I don't think it crosses the line to great or to objectively good, though. I found my attention wandering now and again. Maintaining interest these days when you don't have dialog to hook the viewer is difficult. Also, while I'm sure the actors in this production are skilled, they do not have the skills necessary to do well in silent film. Without dialog, everything needs to be communicated via body language and facial expression. Extensive skill in mime and gesture is necessary, but they simply do not have it. The deliberateness of their actions because it was in the script showed through. Often they felt like actors hitting their marks instead of real people living their lives. But this is forgivable in a fan film, although it would be dishonest to not mention it.

The director tried his best, making use of light and shadow whenever he could. Although nothing was particularly striking. But it wasn't completely boring to look at, either. It could have been all flat angles and such.

One place they could have done more but didn't was during the climax on the island of R'lyeh where perspective is supposed to be all wonky. They just built odd-looking sets, but they could have used things like forced perspective to make this point more clear. But they didn't and the film is poorer for it.

(http://http://linedandunlined.com/wp-archive-uploads/rh/Ames.jpg)

Plotwise, it appears to be a faithful to a fault adaptation. This is expected considering the people behind it. It's just not a very compelling narrative for a visual medium. lots of reading and flashbacks. The entire film is a flashback, in fact, where a dude in a booby hatch gives all his papers to his doctor and tells him to burn it so that no one else will come to know what he does and thus suffer the same fate. So, naturally he tells the guy everything he knows in a parade of flashbacks.

that all said, the HPLHS put a lot of effort into this. There's a cult scene with quite a few extras in it that must have strained their budget or personal relations a bit. You can tell there's love put into it, which makes up for the lack of skill in other areas.

But ultimately this film is a curiosity. It's not great. It may not even be good. But considering its an overgrown fan film done in a gimmicky style, it's worth a look just to say that you've seen it. I can't say that it will stick with you after the credits, though.

I kinda liked it. Not half bad for a fan film. (I've seen worse (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN8Snp14Z6c)) Yeah, pretty bad acting, but I liked the period style and faithfulness to the source material.

The same people did another film, The Whisperer in Darkness (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQkos7WTHjg) which veers a lot from the original story but makes up for it with a suitable ending.

I'd love to see them make Shadow Out Of Time or Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath.

Surprisingly funny. I laughed a lot during the first half, hard enough to almost fall off the couch. The second half was a little slower on the laughs, but still good. I would totally recommend this to anyone with a dark sense of humor.

Thanks for getting this thread up and running again. Money Ball with Brad Pitt. Not your usual sports movie. He plays the manager of the "Oakland A's". Supposedly a true story, with doubtless additions by Hollywood. 9/10 (and I'm not a baseball fan, but the movie is very good).

If you liked The Phantom Menace you might enjoy this too. They are basically the same film. Prequels to technological and creative masterpieces that use far too much CGI to make up for their dull story and characters.

If you liked The Phantom Menace you might enjoy this too. They are basically the same film. Prequels to technological and creative masterpieces that use far too much CGI to make up for their dull story and characters.

I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.

I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.

Interesting because that was where I gave up on Star Trek. Much like where Phantom Menace was where I gave up on Star Wars.

I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.

Interesting because that was where I gave up on Star Trek. Much like where Phantom Menace was where I gave up on Star Wars.

I never got enough of the Borg, which was probably one of the reasons they seemed so chilling. They didn't show up that often, and thank God they didn't, or the Enterprise crew would have surely been doomed. But 30 out of 10??? That would make it the best movie ever, and that fame certainly belongs to Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home.

I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.

I think we watched different movies.

While I do love the Borg, I hated their gradual villain decay from a nigh-unstoppable and unnervingly dispassionate collective to space zombies led by an increasingly laughable queen. I basically agree with Red Letter Media (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ)'s assessment of the movie.

I hated the part with Cockrane and the crew's fangasms over him (and really, Geordi, do you not know what "taking a leak" means?) I also disliked the implication that Future Starfleet set into motion events that led to Starfleet being founded which led to Future Starfleet..oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed.

Then there's the infamous and wildly OOC Tommy Gun incident...

While not as bad as Nemesis or Generations or Insurrection (basically, all the other TNG movies), it was basically the moment that Star Trek jumped the shark (http://http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/sci-fi-rant-when-did-star-trek-jump-the-shark/965). 7 out of 10 for me, and only because of the great action scenes and worthy (though tragically mishandled) villains.

Watched the new version of Red Dawn....or something like that...meh...okay for an action flick, if you got nothing to do,,rainy or snowy or windy or just cloudy and wet or cloudy and windy or just meh..other than that i loved it....kinda

I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.

I think we watched different movies.

While I do love the Borg, I hated their gradual villain decay from a nigh-unstoppable and unnervingly dispassionate collective to space zombies led by an increasingly laughable queen. I basically agree with Red Letter Media (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ)'s assessment of the movie.

I hated the part with Cockrane and the crew's fangasms over him (and really, Geordi, do you not know what "taking a leak" means?) I also disliked the implication that Future Starfleet set into motion events that led to Starfleet being founded which led to Future Starfleet..oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed.

Then there's the infamous and wildly OOC Tommy Gun incident...

While not as bad as Nemesis or Generations or Insurrection (basically, all the other TNG movies), it was basically the moment that Star Trek jumped the shark (http://http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/sci-fi-rant-when-did-star-trek-jump-the-shark/965). 7 out of 10 for me, and only because of the great action scenes and worthy (though tragically mishandled) villains.

While I agree it doesn't deserve 30 out of 10 (lol), it is far and away the best TNG film. Also, they Jumped the Shark with Generations, so it was already dead and done by the time First Contact came out. Honestly, it's a miracle it wasn't worse.I do love and agree with Red Letter Medias review mostly though. Especially Picard dropping the artifact carelessly at the end of the movie while searching through the debris. Crash! That did make me laugh pretty hard, I hadn't spotted that one on my own.

Cute, but too long and drawn out. The first 1/2 hour was very entertaining, after that I had a hard time staying awake or caring what happened. My daughter, who is like me and generally is glued to animated films, also lost interest. She stuck with it longer than me, but neither of us really cared about the end much.

I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.

I think we watched different movies.

While I do love the Borg, I hated their gradual villain decay from a nigh-unstoppable and unnervingly dispassionate collective to space zombies led by an increasingly laughable queen. I basically agree with Red Letter Media (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ)'s assessment of the movie.

I hated the part with Cockrane and the crew's fangasms over him (and really, Geordi, do you not know what "taking a leak" means?) I also disliked the implication that Future Starfleet set into motion events that led to Starfleet being founded which led to Future Starfleet..oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed.

Then there's the infamous and wildly OOC Tommy Gun incident...

While not as bad as Nemesis or Generations or Insurrection (basically, all the other TNG movies), it was basically the moment that Star Trek jumped the shark (http://http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/sci-fi-rant-when-did-star-trek-jump-the-shark/965). 7 out of 10 for me, and only because of the great action scenes and worthy (though tragically mishandled) villains.

I give them all 30/10.I actually think Star Trek jumped the shark in the very first episode of TNG when they introduced Wesley Crusher. If it wasn't for him it would be 50/10.

That was horrible. Part of the reason why it was horrible is because they show up and just say "We're from the fucking future. A future you're going to help shape by flying that tin can of yours into space. It's very important and shit, but no pressure."

I mean, fuck, yo.

In the episode Who Watches the Watchers they had to go undercover to prevent fucking with a pre warp civilization. I guess it don't matter if that pre warp civilization is their own. I mean, I agree that it gets kind of tedious when they go undercover like that on the planet. But It's kind of like when you watch a slow-moving zombie movie and wonder why they don't just run away from the zombies. Because it's fucking stupid. That's why.

That was horrible. Part of the reason why it was horrible is because they show up and just say "We're from the fucking future. A future you're going to help shape by flying that tin can of yours into space. It's very important and shit, but no pressure."

I mean, fuck, yo.

That and they just fawn over the guy constantly and will not leave him alone. It's like working with Overly Attached Girlfriend. *shudders*

I certainly agree First Contact had problems. But, I still found it very enjoyable to watch none-the-less. I do remember one time seeing a top-ten reasons First Contact sucked. I can't remember the rest of the 10, but one of them was, "How is it possible the the Borq could know exactly when in time and where in place to attack - and still miss?" LOL.

I certainly agree First Contact had problems. But, I still found it very enjoyable to watch none-the-less. I do remember one time seeing a top-ten reasons First Contact sucked. I can't remember the rest of the 10, but one of them was, "How is it possible the the Borq could know exactly when in time and where in place to attack - and still miss?" LOL.

Well, the where in space was easy since they went to where Earth was in their present and just back in time in that location because planets are exceptionally still.

WWII paratroopers drop into France the day before "D" Day. They set up radio signals and ground lights to guide the Allied "something or other" to do "whatever". I'm not exactly sure what that was, but it must have been something important and dangerous.

This independent film was produced by someone called the Portland Film Group, which I'd guess must be a group of first year students at a community college in down town Portland, Oregon, who opted for making a movie as a class project, rather than having to write a term paper.

There is so much wrong with this highly uninteresting movie that you ought to watch it just to see how boring it is. Every last character in the movie is totally forgettable. They all act the same, without any personality, just human robots carrying out an assignment. You canít tell one from the other. If they die, you won't care. If they succeed, you won't care either.

The paratroopers are up against highly trained German units specializing in "anti-paratrooper" warfare. I'm not kidding. The movie calls them "highly specialized anti-paratrooper units", not that it makes any difference, because the Germans are even dumber than the Americans. They whistle and sing German marching songs. They do this with a loud gaiety at the top of their lungs, while they wait in ambush. So it's no problem for the Americans to locate and kill them.

There's lots of mind boggling heroics by the Americans. Soldiers sacrifice themselves by throwing themselves on grenades that could have easily been picked up and thrown back at the Germans. One guy lays on a grenade that takes so long to explode I thought it was a dud. Finally, it exploded after 10 seconds.

The Americans play it cagey sneaking around and doing their secret stuff, but sometimes, for no explainable reason, one will rush wildly at the Germans while yelling and firing his rifle. He might die or not. You won't care. You can't even remember which guy he was in the movie anyway.

WWII paratroopers drop into France the day before "D" Day. They set up radio signals and ground lights to guide the Allied "something or other" to do "whatever". I'm not exactly sure what that was, but it must have been something important and dangerous.

This independent film was produced by someone called the Portland Film Group, which I'd guess must be a group of first year students at a community college in down town Portland, Oregon, who opted for making a movie as a class project, rather than having to write a term paper.

There is so much wrong with this highly uninteresting movie that you ought to watch it just to see how boring it is. Every last character in the movie is totally forgettable. They all act the same, without any personality, just human robots carrying out an assignment. You canít tell one from the other. If they die, you won't care. If they succeed, you won't care either.

The paratroopers are up against highly trained German units specializing in "anti-paratrooper" warfare. I'm not kidding. The movie calls them "highly specialized anti-paratrooper units", not that it makes any difference, because the Germans are even dumber than the Americans. They whistle and sing German marching songs. They do this with a loud gaiety at the top of their lungs, while they wait in ambush. So it's no problem for the Americans to locate and kill them.

There's lots of mind boggling heroics by the Americans. Soldiers sacrifice themselves by throwing themselves on grenades that could have easily been picked up and thrown back at the Germans. One guy lays on a grenade that takes so long to explode I thought it was a dud. Finally, it exploded after 10 seconds.

The Americans play it cagey sneaking around and doing their secret stuff, but sometimes, for no explainable reason, one will rush wildly at the Germans while yelling and firing his rifle. He might die or not. You won't care. You can't even remember which guy he was in the movie anyway.

one of the most enjoyable reviews I have read. You missed your calling.

Judging from the trailer, I expected an utterly crappy movie. I was ready to lay into this stinker and mock it mercilessly. But then I actually watched it.

It was actually good. I have been pleasantly surprised.

The movie is nowhere near as bad as it is portrayed in the trailer. It's not without it's flaws - some of the acting isn't great (others surprised me by just how well they pulled off their characters, especially the vermin guy), the special effects definitely needed some work, the first few scenes were kinda boring, and the script could use a rewrite to really flesh things out a bit more. But for such an obviously low-budget film, it turned out pretty damn enjoyable and entertaining. Maybe I'm just a sucker for Team Evil, but I genuinely liked these characters.

Plot:It tells the story of a holy knight aspirant on the moment of his knighthood, who seeks a blessing from his God, Pelor, The Shining One. A sign to signify His approval. Nothing happens. And soon after, the holy order is massacred by their enemies and the aspirant's father taken captive. To save his father, this holy knight infiltrates an evil adventuring party and starts down on a path of darkness...

Score: 6/10. It's okay for what it is.

Reasons to watch:* Boobies. Lots of them.* Evil Feels Good.* The evil adventuring party is great. My favorite by far is the guy who can transform his body into a cloud of vermin (cockroaches, centipedes, scorpions, etc) and swarms over people, killing them horrifically. He is disturbing as hell and I love him for it.* Some really satisfying deaths. They're pretty hardcore in this movie. This is not a family friendly film in the slightest.* The zombie scene freaks me the hell out. I'm seriously going to have nightmares about that. *shudders*

I watched Amelie again. It shall remain my favorite film ever for a while longer.

I give it a 10/10. The atmopshere, the characters, the story, all both heartwarming and tear-inducing.

Yeah, "Amalie" is a movie The Rick Copeland should really hate. It's quite cloying and cutsie, the main character has elements that he would hate if they were portrayed by... say Zooey Deschanelle... but it really is a cute, sweet movie. And Audrey Tautou is cute as all get out. C'mon, that bit where you see her through the observation glass waving...

The Rick Copeland is eagerly looking forward to watching the second part of the comedy epic "Atlas Shrugged". Nooooooooo!

I watched Star Trek First Contact, a 1996 film featuring the Star Trek The Next Generation cast. I've seen it multiple times. Great movie, it's got a lot of Borg(the zombies of Star Trek). I give it 30 stars out of a possible 10.

The Rick Copeland hasn't see that since it was in theaters. He never cared for ST:TNG and had no real knowledge of the Borg before the movie. He recalled thinking the movie was ok, but that the Borg were kinda dull. Somewhat like Jehovas's Witnesses.... But with that cool cube spaceship thing....

Surprisingly funny. I laughed a lot during the first half, hard enough to almost fall off the couch. The second half was a little slower on the laughs, but still good. I would totally recommend this to anyone with a dark sense of humor.

"Tucker and Dale vs Evil" is worth watching just for the best scene ever involving a chainsaw and bees...

The Rick Copeland is eagerly looking forward to watching the second part of the comedy epic "Atlas Shrugged". Nooooooooo!

They're really going to do the second part? Who is funding the thing? Part one was a box office bomb (it didn't even play in local theaters here), and what producer would want to build on that?

Not to say I didn't half way enjoy the first part. I would categorize it as "so so Sci Fi". If you think of it that way, the stupidity of the central message can be overlooked. I'm actually looking forward to see how Hollywood recreates the secret Utopian society hidden away in the Colorado mountains. I've always pictured that as a bunch of eccentric rich guys living in 1700 hundreds village that looks like early Salem Massachusetts.

What do you mean "going to"? Brother, they already did it. It's out on video now.

I better get a move on then. Hell, it hasn't even shown up on Netflix new releases page. Course, none do until the interesed core group of fans have finished renting them. Or maybe they only have one disk to rent out.

Quote

The Rick Copeland hopes they make the third part. He also hopes the last forty or so minutes consists solely of a radio playing a speech. Sweeeeeet...

I think I skipped the speech when I read the book. I probably started it, but lost interest. I vaguely remember a speech at the end of the book. As I recall reading somewhere, Ayn Rand's publisher didn't want to put the speech in the book, but Rand threw a hissy fit, so he left it in.

Yes you should. The first installment is required viewing for lovers of cheesey, bad movie making. The Rick Copeland is hoping the second is at least as good...

Quote from: "SGOS"

I think I skipped the speech when I read the book. I probably started it, but lost interest. I vaguely remember a speech at the end of the book.

Yeah, it's a pretty dull seventy page (?) speech that only beats the reader up with a point she had already made countess times thoughout the book. Kinda like the end of a He-Man episode where it wasn't enough for the silly moral to be obvious. At the end He-Man had to come out and tell the viewer to be themselves, or eat their greens, or some other shit.

Quote from: "SGOS"

As I recall reading somewhere, Ayn Rand's publisher didn't want to put the speech in the book, but Rand threw a hissy fit, so he left it in.

And with those gapped teeth and bug eyes she was probably a sight to behold...

Does it have the same cast as the second part or are they going to change it again? The Rick Copeland hopes they shit can everyone again and replace them with an all midget cast, or people with Down Syndrome. That would be amazing...

Does it have the same cast as the second part or are they going to change it again?

I don't know. Wikipedia didn't say. Even if it did, it would likely be subject to change by the time it got in front of a camera. These movies are the pinnacle of a vanity project and that they keep making them when the previous one just doesn't make any money is ridiculous.

Does it have the same cast as the second part or are they going to change it again?

I don't know. Wikipedia didn't say. Even if it did, it would likely be subject to change by the time it got in front of a camera. These movies are the pinnacle of a vanity project and that they keep making them when the previous one just doesn't make any money is ridiculous.

Yeah, but The Rick Copeland has to admit that if he were a gaziliionaire he'd finance a shot-by-shot re-make of all three of them. Maybe with the all wee folk or Down Syndrome cast... Or maybe Down Syndrome wee folk...

But it is funny when you make a movie extolling the free market andthe free market tells you to fuck off..

Going to watch the LotR movies for the first time, I'll tell y'all what I think.

Really??? You seem to watch about everything.

Oddly enough, I didn't really watch movies till about a year and a half ago (I would see them in the theatre from time to time, but not buy any). I've just recently started liking movies, and generally watch at least one or two a week to try and catch up with the rest of the world.

LotR: The Fellowship of the Rings-Since it is the first in a series, I will cut it some slack. I never felt like any scene just went on for too long.-I found the soundtrack and scenery very awesome, from the peaceful Shire to the awesome Dwarf ruins and the two statues on the river whom's names I cannot remember. -I didn't find myself hating any of the main characters, which is rare. Don't learn too much about some of them, so that could change though. Even the "bad" fellowship member's "badness" is understandable, given he wants to protect his people.-The fight involving the fellowship along the river is awesome, and I love how much of a bad ass Sean Bean is in it near the end.-The Dwarf city fight is also bad ass.

Con:-How did Gandolf teleport through the roof of Isengard? -Why don't they just use birds to fly to Morodor (besides the obvious; they are just too badass)?-Why is Agent Smith high as fuck, thinking he is an elf and shit?-Is Frodo a moron? Like, "HEY GUIZ, I HAZ DIS RING, ANYONE WANT IT!?!?!". What about, "This ring will tempt and destroy people" are you having such a fucking hard time understanding?

Overall, I give it an 8.75 out of 10.

LotR: The Two Towers

-Gandolf the White is bad ass, even if it feels like a Jesus reference.-Helm's Deep is bad ass.-The Ente's are funny and bad ass, even if the Isengard battle is too short.-The scene with the King of Rohan and Wormtongue was bad ass.-Sam's speech at the end of the movie is bad ass.-Arwen's speech with her father and his responses are bad ass.-This movie is bad ass.-And again, the scenery and the music is bad ass.

Cons: -Gandolf, Arragon... the whole, "OMG THEY ARE DEAD!!! LOLJK!" is kinda annoying and predictable. But oh well.-I don't know if Faramir dies at the end, or they mean his life is forfeit in that he loses his title, right to live in Gondor, etc. and that annoys me.

-How did Gandolf teleport through the roof of Isengard? -Why don't they just use birds to fly to Morodor (besides the obvious; they are just too badass)?-Why is Agent Smith high as fuck, thinking he is an elf and shit?-Is Frodo a moron? Like, "HEY GUIZ, I HAZ DIS RING, ANYONE WANT IT!?!?!". What about, "This ring will tempt and destroy people" are you having such a fucking hard time understanding?

1) Magic 2) They'd be easily spotted and killed. The idea with the hobbits is to sneak the ring in. 3) A glitch in the Matrix 4) Yeah, they're idiots. And the ring seems to grant emo powers more than anything else.

Hobbit.Family bought it for me as a gift since I loved Lord of the Rings.

erm.......... count me a little disappointed in Hobbit. Not sure why.

Perhaps because it's mostly set-up. The Rick Copeland has noticed many who thought "The Hobbit" was dull didn't care for the extended versions of the LotR movies either...

Watched it at home and fairly certain I must have fallen asleep on and off during the movie. Eegads - that's saying a lot for me. I'm a lover of LOTR. LOLDunno......Hobbit seemed too predictable, too easy, and kinda dragged along..... Insert darkness wish to take over middle earth, hobbit and company flee protected by sometimes ineffective wizard (?) WTF is that? So.....*yawn* yeah

It's hard for me to take hobbits seriously if they aren't in old time Disney cartoon format. I don't know how live actors can be expected to look like Tolkien characters. Gollum is a wonderful character, and the movie did him pretty well, but I imagined a much more revolting and creepy character in the book. I can't remember ever once thinking he might be loveable like he is in the movie.

I'm not one of those intellectual highbrows that continually says, "The book was better than the movie," But every Hobbit and Trilogy movie I've seen falls short of my expectations.

It's hard for me to take hobbits seriously if they aren't in old time Disney cartoon format. I don't know how live actors can be expected to look like Tolkien characters. Gollum is a wonderful character, and the movie did him pretty well, but I imagined a much more revolting and creepy character in the book. I can't remember ever once thinking he might be loveable like he is in the movie.

I'm not one of those intellectual highbrows that continually says, "The book was better than the movie," But every Hobbit and Trilogy movie I've seen falls short of my expectations.

Might be my problem. But if OUR imaginations are better than what Hollywood can provide - they should hire us. LOL

Ordinarily, I wouldn't rent a documentary from Netflix, and they had this film on a long wait or maybe listed it but didn't have it, but my sister pressed me to rent this. I was finally able to rent it from Blockbuster on line. It's a low production value film, perhaps made by amatures, but with an absolutely wonderful story. It's about a little known guitar player/song writer named Sixto Rodriguez from Detroit, Michigan, who during the 60s and 70s, was signed on by a record company that thought he would be the next Bob Dillon, but for some unexplainable reason, neither of his two albums went anywhere so they dropped him, and he fell into obscurity (but not quite). For some reason, even though he never knew it, he achieved a notoriety in South Africa on par with the Beatles.

Nothing was known about him. It was said that he committed suicide on stage during a performance, but there were no news clips about his life and only two pictures of him on his record jackets. A South African journalist spends years trying to find out more information about who he was, but keeps encountering dead ends until he manages to locate one of his daughters. Now, I'm not going to give away the good parts. If you like blues and folk music, just see if you can find the film. Blockbuster has it, and they have a free one month trial, so you can cancel before the month is up, and get some free films besides.

The movie is laced with his songs, often as a kind of background for the commentary, but there is much much more to the story, which I thought was nothing short of stunning and heart warming.

It starts out as just a normal documentary. Some guys who had heard him once or twice at some Detroit bar do the usual and rather ordinary interviews at the beginning. It's bla bla ba about how good he was, and I'm thinking this is going to be another boring documentary about some nobody, but in deference to my sister, I was committed to watching the whole thing. The mystery builds and builds to a splendid and inspiring story, with some good music too.

the wife wanted to watch the last...er......that new age vampire movie thingy....s'okay,, a love scene tween the boy and the girl must wet a few hundred thousand crotches but was pretty mild for a sex scene. She kinda implied that they could simply fuck all the time since they never get tired,, she kinda freaks me out a little. The battle scene was kinda okay...meh.... I give it six beers, cause thats what it took for me to get through it.

the wife wanted to watch the last...er......that new age vampire movie thingy....s'okay,, a love scene tween the boy and the girl must wet a few hundred thousand crotches but was pretty mild for a sex scene. She kinda implied that they could simply fuck all the time since they never get tired,, she kinda freaks me out a little. The battle scene was kinda okay...meh.... I give it six beers, cause thats what it took for me to get through it.

I gave up on that series after the second one, so I haven't seen it, but Roger Ebert described that sex scene as the longest awated sex scene in movie history. Although, he admitted that it wasn't much.

-Is Frodo a moron? Like, "HEY GUIZ, I HAZ DIS RING, ANYONE WANT IT!?!?!". What about, "This ring will tempt and destroy people" are you having such a fucking hard time understanding?

It doesn't really come across in the movie, but "This ring will tempt and destroy people" is meant to be taken literally. It literally does that. Hence Frodo's occasional dumb-ass moves; it's the ring fucking with his mind.

the wife wanted to watch the last...er......that new age vampire movie thingy....s'okay,, a love scene tween the boy and the girl must wet a few hundred thousand crotches but was pretty mild for a sex scene. She kinda implied that they could simply fuck all the time since they never get tired,, she kinda freaks me out a little. The battle scene was kinda okay...meh.... I give it six beers, cause thats what it took for me to get through it.

You mean sparkly Twilight?If you actually watched it I'm impressed. Not with the movie but with you for doing that for the wife.

+2 in super hero department

(erm...........cause Twilight sucks. And I even read all the books. ::yawn::)

Finally got around to watching it since it is on Netflix now. I almost expected to hate it, considering what I'd heard about the religious PoV of the move, but I think it actually sits the fence pretty well.

The real story of what happened as he tells it in his hospital bed is heartbreaking.

[spoil:3294rth8]I would think religious folks would have more issues with it, since the moral seemed to be that people should be religious because it's more entertaining than Real Life, not because it's true. I mean honestly, that totally seemed like the point Pi made. So yeah, he basically admits that all religions may be made up, but hey, aren't they good stories?? Honestly, the end only vaguely made any sense at all, though.[/spoil:3294rth8]

Anyway, the story WAS entertaining, and the graphics are well done, so I give it a "recommended".

If you liked The Phantom Menace you might enjoy this too. They are basically the same film. Prequels to technological and creative masterpieces that use far too much CGI to make up for their dull story and characters.

In retrospect, it is actually much better than The Phantom Menace (what isn't though). There is a Jar Jar life debt type character in the film but he is much more agreeable than Jar Jar. James Franco is what irritates me about the movie. He needs to go back to doing soap operas. Oz really needed to be played by a person that could carry a film on his shoulders and James Franco can't do that. Johnny Depp would have worked and with the money spent to make the movie they should have paid a little more for the central character.

The Rick Copeland is finally irritated with these things. Why do these movies such as "Star Trek Kids" or any super hero movie feel the need to bring back villains from the tv show/previous movies/ comic books. The Rick Copeland would like for at least one of these movies to give us a new bad guy nobody has seen before...

Neat old classic cars from the 1940s brought back fond memories; Fords and Studebakers for the cops, while the gangsters drove Packards. Shootouts employ a liberal use tommy guns and sawed off shotguns with at least a 32 ounces of lead in the air at any given second. Guys go down doing the ĎTommy Gun Shimmyí as they get riddled with bullets in the true comic book tradition. Love the 1940s blues and jazz music (Chickee Boom Chickee Boom) in the gangster night clubs sung by some dame with bananas and grapes on her head.

Sean Penn is the brutal gangster cornering the crime syndicate in LA (Iím takiní over this town and then the rest of the West Coast), but harassed by cops taking liberties with the law and equally demented themselves: WHACK, THUNK, CRUNCH, ďTheyíll be waiting for you with a lead pipe in Alcatraz, Mickey!Ē

Iím not usually a fan of crime movies, but this one was a wonderful exception. It was a great bloody, almost satirical film. Everyone was a fantasy tough guy, except for Emma Stone, who gets sexier every time I see her. Iím putting this one in my private collection.

Neat old classic cars from the 1940s brought back fond memories; Fords and Studebakers for the cops, while the gangsters drove Packards. Shootouts employ a liberal use tommy guns and sawed off shotguns with at least a 32 ounces of lead in the air at any given second. Guys go down doing the ĎTommy Gun Shimmyí as they get riddled with bullets in the true comic book tradition. Love the 1940s blues and jazz music (Chickee Boom Chickee Boom) in the gangster night clubs sung by some dame with bananas and grapes on her head.

Sean Penn is the brutal gangster cornering the crime syndicate in LA (Iím takiní over this town and then the rest of the West Coast), but harassed by cops taking liberties with the law and equally demented themselves: WHACK, THUNK, CRUNCH, ďTheyíll be waiting for you with a lead pipe in Alcatraz, Mickey!Ē

Iím not usually a fan of crime movies, but this one was a wonderful exception. It was a great bloody, almost satirical film. Everyone was a fantasy tough guy, except for Emma Stone, who gets sexier every time I see her. Iím putting this one in my private collection.

YAY! Us too. Just rented this from Redbox --- we thought it was fantastic! A bit cheesy but who cares?

I'm gonna give it a 4 out of 10 based on some pretty lousy writing. Much too cliche to get the job done. And what a waste with such a good cast. Some pretty big holes in the plot which I assume landed on the editing floor (?)

The series written or on film I highly recommend is this: The Millennium series consists of three bestselling novels, originally written in Swedish, by the late Stieg Larsson (1954Ė2004). The two primary characters in the saga are Lisbeth Salander, a woman in her twenties with a photographic memory and poor social skills, and Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative journalist and editor of a magazine called Millennium. Blomkvist, the character, has a history similar to Larsson, the author. Larsson planned the series as having ten installments, but due to his sudden death, only three were completed and published.[1] Those three books are:

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Mšn som hatar kvinnor, literally, Men who hate women) (2005)

The Girl Who Played with Fire (Flickan som lekte med elden, literally, The girl who played with fire) (2006)

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest (Luftslottet som spršngdes, literally, The air castle that was blown up) (2007)

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)Lazenby owns the action sequences, but not the Bond part. Telly Savalas does an admirable Blowfeld. Diana Rigg is smoking hot.The middle part drags on for a little too long. The bobseigh chase gives a novel finale, but soon afterwards the film ends all too abrubtly.7/10

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)Some of the 007-films turn the formula into a parody of itself. Moonraker and Die Another Day are two later examples, this was the first.Blowfeld's henchmen laughably fail at being menacing. The fightscene in an Amsterdam elevator is okay. However..the encounter with Bambi and Thumper, and kiddy-sized trikes chasing some stupid looking moonbuggy make the movey more memorable than the first two Bonds, but for the wrong reason. The composite effects (explosions added in post production) are outright crap; probably because the bulk of the budget got swallowed up by Mr Connery's astronomical fee.5/10

The series written or on film I highly recommend is this: The Millennium series consists of three bestselling novels, originally written in Swedish, by the late Stieg Larsson (1954Ė2004). The two primary characters in the saga are Lisbeth Salander, a woman in her twenties with a photographic memory and poor social skills, and Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative journalist and editor of a magazine called Millennium. Blomkvist, the character, has a history similar to Larsson, the author. Larsson planned the series as having ten installments, but due to his sudden death, only three were completed and published.[1] Those three books are:

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Mšn som hatar kvinnor, literally, Men who hate women) (2005)

The Girl Who Played with Fire (Flickan som lekte med elden, literally, The girl who played with fire) (2006)

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest (Luftslottet som spršngdes, literally, The air castle that was blown up) (2007)

Bill

Seconded. I recommended this earlier before the forum died. I still think Rooney Mara was the better protagonist (American version) but Noomi Rapace isn't bad either. The Swedish version is being shown every now and then on the Sundance Channel. Very involving story with an intricate plot.

I've always thought of James Bond films in general as satire. They all use the same formula and all have the same ending. Taking them seriously is difficult. I've always enjoyed the more over the top ones (generally starring Roger Moore). The more recent ones have had a more serious tone and I don't think that it helps the series.

I've always thought of James Bond films in general as satire. They all use the same formula and all have the same ending. Taking them seriously is difficult. I've always enjoyed the more over the top ones (generally starring Roger Moore). The more recent ones have had a more serious tone and I don't think that it helps the series.

The only reason I like the new Bond films is that I got tired of the same old same old. Unfortunately, when you take out the tongue in cheek spy satire, they're just another spy series of the really same old nature.

Bond was a great franchise but it's seen it's best days. Craig is a good enough Bond, but the new direction leaves me flat.

I've always thought of James Bond films in general as satire. They all use the same formula and all have the same ending. Taking them seriously is difficult. I've always enjoyed the more over the top ones (generally starring Roger Moore). The more recent ones have had a more serious tone and I don't think that it helps the series.

The only reason I like the new Bond films is that I got tired of the same old same old. Unfortunately, when you take out the tongue in cheek spy satire, they're just another spy series of the really same old nature.

Bond was a great franchise but it's seen it's best days. Craig is a good enough Bond, but the new direction leaves me flat.

I can't like it without Judy. Can't. She was the best part for years.*pout*

Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie. It's a lifetime cinematic achievement." Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering. Different strokes for different folks. If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.

Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie. It's a lifetime cinematic achievement." Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering. Different strokes for different folks. If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.

I thought I remembered the critics giving it a, "Meh.". Maybe I am thinking of wrong movie.

Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie. It's a lifetime cinematic achievement." Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering. Different strokes for different folks. If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.

I thought I remembered the critics giving it a, "Meh.". Maybe I am thinking of wrong movie.

Critics basically raved about this one, one saying, "This is not a movie. It's a lifetime cinematic achievement." Well... it was somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it had a point, or at least a point worth remembering. Different strokes for different folks. If artsy fartsy is your thing, go for it.

I thought I remembered the critics giving it a, "Meh.". Maybe I am thinking of wrong movie.

I don't read all the critics. I may have two or three that praised it, and just made assumptions after that. Meh, is a fairly appropriate review, I think. It's not like the movie stunk, and it does have its clever moments, but it was just kind of "Meh".

Man of Steel was awful. There were more holes than there was plot, the exposition was dull, and the only decent characters were Lois Lane and General Zod. It had fun parts, but they were few and far in between, and I'd rather just re-watch Iron Man if I want a fun movie.

A few questions that ran through my mind watching this movie:[spoil:3aov3zfw]Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? Why is John Kent such a pussy? How come Kryptonian atmosphere fucks up Superman but Earth atmosphere doesn't affect Zod? Why do all these Kryptonians instantly have superman powers without exposure to the sun or breathing Earth's air? How does this scientist know that two colliding Phantom Drives will cause a black hole when he literally first heard about the Phantom Drive two seconds ago? Why do they still need to use the Phantom Drive collision after Superman fucks shit up and stops the World Machine? Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? WHY DOES ZOD WANT LOIS LANE ON THE SHIP?[/spoil:3aov3zfw]

Saw "Oz the Great and Powerful" and "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" over the weekend.

Oz - 5/10. Story was good, especially for an origins story, and the acting was decent but Disney's insane overuse of 3D (didn't even watch in 3D, just saw a lot [a whole lot] of stuff that was supposed to jump off the screen) made the film feel gimmicky. The latest 3D technologies can be used to truly enhance a movie experience ("Avatar," "Star Trek: Into Darkness") but Disney chose to make a what felt like, at times, a cheap 80's 3D movie.

H&G - 6.5/10. Do not expect a great film or an awesome story here. The plot was thin with few twists, what twists it had were badly telegraphed and the acting was meh. The movie's saving grace? They seemed to have spent 1/3 of their budget on fake blood and witch costumes. There's so much gore it could easily be classified as a slasher flick. This one doesn't even aim at horror, misses the cheap scare and goes directly for the gross-out. :-D With a better story and better acting (which we should have gotten from Jeremy Renner & Gemma Arterton) this would have been a great movie.

So I watched that fucking Superman movie and what can I say? As a spectacle, it's awesome. Some of the best fight scenes and use of super powered humans in a movie yet. I believe this one sets the bar and, yes, I have seen the Avengers, mother fucker. I mean, holy shit. Godzilla movies don't have this much destruction. And there are some nice touches, such as how it starts out with Supes only being able to super-leap, like he originally did in the comics, before learning how to actually fly and when the bad guys show up, they also start out leaping. The also do a couple things that I would have though would have looked goofy in live action but they somehow make it work. So marks for them.

The story, however, is a mess. It makes just enough sense to be disappointing that it doesn't hit it out of the park. It doesn't carry much emotional weight but is also trying too hard to be heavy. Lois Lane and the Daily Planet gang were probably not in original drafts of the script because they feel tacked on. If that's the case, I wish they had left them out and used whichever character fulfilled her main role as a plot McGuffin.

[spoil:27cc96p8]Thinking upon it, it would have made sense if Superman's mom played by Diane Lane was in this role where Zod insists she comes on board the ship and Superman slips her that thing that uploads his dad into the ship. There could have been an interesting meeting of the natural father with the adoptive mother. But someone said Lois Lane has to be in the movie, and ruined everything.

In fact, the original story probably had a theme of parenting with Supes not knowing which parents to listen to, and he has two sets of the fucking things, and finally making his own decisions. That might have helped the story immensely. As it is, it feels unfocused.[/spoil:27cc96p8]

So, ultimately, it's a disappointing movie because it reaches for greatness and almost, almost gets it. If they had trimmed the fat and focused the story a little tighter, it would have been everything it could be.

The latest 3D technologies can be used to truly enhance a movie experience ("Avatar," "Star Trek: Into Darkness") but Disney chose to make a what felt like, at times, a cheap 80's 3D movie.

I was impressed with Avatar in 3D, although maybe it was because it was one of the first I saw in the new 3D format that I was so looking forward to, but since then, I have been marginally impressed (I watched Star Trek in 2D and can't comment).

Incidentally, the trade name for the new 3D is "Real 3D". They had to name it something, and I suppose it sounds more appealing than "Half Assed 3D", which would actually be more accurately descriptive.

I don't know for sure, but I think it's the process used to render it. What I remember in the 50's were movies photographed using double lensed cameras. While that is probably still employed, it doesn't account for the entire process, because they can turn out old movies like the Titanic in 3D. Those movies were filmed with one lens. They must be rendered in 3D by some digital hijinks. By the time Hollywood finishes the process, possibly mixing duo vision and the "hijinks", the final result is not quite right. In fact, every movie I've seen in Real 3D appears to be compromised in some way, at least to my eye.

I don't know for sure, but I think it's the process used to render it. What I remember in the 50's were movies photographed using double lensed cameras. While that is probably still employed, it doesn't account for the entire process, because they can turn out old movies like the Titanic in 3D. Those movies were filmed with one lens. They must be rendered in 3D by some digital hijinks. By the time Hollywood finishes the process, possibly mixing duo vision and the "hijinks", the final result is not quite right. In fact, every movie I've seen in Real 3D appears to be compromised in some way, at least to my eye.

The 3D movies from the 50's were all done post processing. It wasn't until the early 80's that they came up with a method of splitting the image using mirrors to simulate dual lenses. Late in the 90's the first dual lens cameras were produced. The cameras today are far more than just dual lenses. Each lens can swivel and focus independently, mimicking very closely the way stereoscopic vision works. Add to that the huge variety of things that can be done during post-processing and you can get some insanely good and very realistic effects.

In fact, every movie I've seen in Real 3D appears to be compromised in some way, at least to my eye.

Well, that's because all 3D stuff is flattened a bit in post. They don't want you to know that, but the illusion of depth is reduced. Know how something like 20% of the population experiences discomfort or worse from viewing 3D? If they didn't do this, everyone would have that problem and they'd have no customers. So they reduce the illusion of depth and most people can tolerate it.

The 3D movies from the 50's were all done post processing. It wasn't until the early 80's that they came up with a method of splitting the image using mirrors to simulate dual lenses. Late in the 90's the first dual lens cameras were produced. The cameras today are far more than just dual lenses. Each lens can swivel and focus independently, mimicking very closely the way stereoscopic vision works. Add to that the huge variety of things that can be done during post-processing and you can get some insanely good and very realistic effects.

Dual lens 35mm cameras were available through the Montgomery Ward Catalog in the late 50s or early 60s. They produced pictures that were viewed with a personal viewer mostly, but I understand projectors and polarized glasses were also available, but didn't work very well. Antique 3D stereoscopic pictures were around before that. A photographer told me they were taken with double lenses. But I would be interested in reading your sources.

In fact, every movie I've seen in Real 3D appears to be compromised in some way, at least to my eye.

Well, that's because all 3D stuff is flattened a bit in post. They don't want you to know that, but the illusion of depth is reduced. Know how something like 20% of the population experiences discomfort or worse from viewing 3D? If they didn't do this, everyone would have that problem and they'd have no customers. So they reduce the illusion of depth and most people can tolerate it.

Yeah. Sometimes I feel like I have to use my imagination to convince myself the movie is really in 3D. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. I don't remember experiencing that with Avatar, where some scenes like flying around the floating mountains took my breath away. I'd love to see that again in 3D to see if it still leaves that impression.

If anyone interested, DarkAntics, (aka DarkMatter2525) notes the Christian overtones of the story. He says he isn't opposed to using Christian imagery, he likes Narnia for example. But, he found it excessively overhanded. And even has anti-evolution messages in it.

Yeah. The previous Superman series were kind of heavy with the jesus symbolism

"...I have sent them you, my only son."~ Marlon Brando as Jor-El

I actually noticed the heavy-handed message in that fucking Superman movie, too. They don't just have a christian message. There's also something about depleting our natural resources, as the Kryptonians had tapped the planet's core because all other energy sources had been depleted. Also kind of a pro space exploration footnote as part of the reason Krypton was doomed is they abandoned their space colonies once the eugenics took over. Probably could have found more power sources in fucking space.

Anyway, I probably could have done without the messianic crap because it had been done before. One thing I didn't mind was an off-handed thing Pa Kent said that indicated he was a christian. He's a farmer in Kansas. It's just playing the odds. They didn't beat us over the head with the fact, and I appreciated it. But it makes sense that he would be, and likely would have raised his son to believe in jesus.

I concur, though. It makes the common mistake of equating evolution with eugenics. That's fucking stupid. They are two different things. Like evolution takes away our ability to choose or something. Morons.

I think this is the "depth" to the story, but it's the kind of depth that is teaspoon shallow but the idiotic masses will be impressed by it just the same. It's like how I found The Stand to be boring and dumb, but a lot of people seemed to like it for that stupidity. Not despite the stupidity but because of it because they don't think the stupidity is stupid.

Man of Steel was awful. There were more holes than there was plot, the exposition was dull, and the only decent characters were Lois Lane and General Zod. It had fun parts, but they were few and far in between, and I'd rather just re-watch Iron Man if I want a fun movie.

A few questions that ran through my mind watching this movie:[spoil:20h1pk3q]Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? Why is John Kent such a pussy? How come Kryptonian atmosphere fucks up Superman but Earth atmosphere doesn't affect Zod? Why do all these Kryptonians instantly have superman powers without exposure to the sun or breathing Earth's air? How does this scientist know that two colliding Phantom Drives will cause a black hole when he literally first heard about the Phantom Drive two seconds ago? Why do they still need to use the Phantom Drive collision after Superman fucks shit up and stops the World Machine? Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? Why does Zod want Lois Lane on the ship? WHY DOES ZOD WANT LOIS LANE ON THE SHIP?[/spoil:20h1pk3q]

According to Rotten Tomatoes, Man of Steel currently has the biggest box office earnings, but gets only 56% from movie goers. I guess people are going, because, well, it's Superman, but in general, they aren't liking it that much.

According to Rotten Tomatoes, Man of Steel currently has the biggest box office earnings, but gets only 56% from movie goers. I guess people are going, because, well, it's Superman, but in general, they aren't liking it that much.

No, that 56% is percent of reviewers that liked it, not the public movie goes. MoS has a grade A on Cinamscore, if I recall correctly.

According to Rotten Tomatoes, Man of Steel currently has the biggest box office earnings, but gets only 56% from movie goers. I guess people are going, because, well, it's Superman, but in general, they aren't liking it that much.

No, that 56% is percent of reviewers that liked it, not the public movie goes. MoS has a grade A on Cinamscore, if I recall correctly.

Man of Steel - I loved this movie, every minute of it, right down to the cheesy lines delivered with melodramatic overkill. I laughed a lot and left the theater smiling. Not much plot here and no deep meaning. Some of the fight scenes were astonishingly destructive and made combat in the Transformers seem like some 4 year old playing with his action figure set. These characters really duke it out leaving cities in devastating post apocalyptic ruins, which has been pointed out earlier in this thread as "setting a new bar" for superhero movies. I'm cautious about ever giving a movie a "10" because that's like saying it was a perfect movie, and I'm not a big fan of shaky cam filming, so I can take something off there. I'll just say it was way better than 9. :-D

I realy want to see WWZ, I even got the book recently and read it, just to compare.I also want to see Man of Steel and make my own judgements, but the reviews here have given me very mixed feelings, and I think I will wait to see it now, instead of dishing out dough to see it in theaters.

Saw Craigslist Joe on Netflix last night. 4/10. Really dull. Plot: Guy decides to see if he can travel the US for free using only Craigslist. Has very few interesting things happen to him along the way. Only plus was seeing the artsy/hippie culture thriving and still paying it forward. The movie itself almost put me to sleep, though.

The TV series "24" is good. Never heard about it before, but I'm picking it up on Amazon Prime. I've just finished an engrossing 1st season, comprised of 24 episodes, each devoted to 1 hour of real time in a 24 hour day. You wouldn't think they could make that format work, but I've been on the edge of my seat for the last week. The tension for the first half of the season was almost unbearable. I was actually relieved when things slowed down a bit midway. There are flaws here and there, but forgivable. It got a bit melodramatic at the very end. It's a good way to get glued to the TV screen. I'm not going to start Season Two right away. I'm going to give my heart a rest and watch a couple of romantic comedies I got from Red Box next.

I liked this 4th in the series, as I have the others in the Step Up franchise (the third one didn't do much for me). Don't bother unless you have a quirky interest in street dancing, like I do. I just like watching the dance and choreography. The story line is the same story line in all of them, and I have to say it's actually pathetic. New girl moves into the neighborhood. She is studying classical dance at an upscale school, or trying to break into quality dance group, meets this guy from the "hood" and takes her talents to the street, usually managing to alarm her parents in the process. Of course, society is outraged by the basically harmless antics of these good hearted, but somewhat delinquent looking street kids. Together they end up saving society from some evil wrong by dancing. Yep dancing. It's always the same, just a few new characters in a different place.

Now before you stick your finger down your throat, I know how this must sound, but it helps me understand why some people like to go see crappy musicals strung together by a pointless plot intended to connect the shitty songs together. You know how the dialog goes along, something gets almost interesting, and suddenly for no apparent reason, the cast breaks out in song. WTF?? Well I like to watch street dancing.

"Iron Man 3": More summer meh. It takes all of three to five minutes to figure out who the bad guy really is and once you get it you really want to see more of Ben Kingsley, who i fantastic as this Asian/ middle American/ Middle Eastern/ British "bad guy" Worth seeing for his performance alone, the movie ends with a large amount of ass kickery that is, in the end, surprisingly uninvolving and uninteresting. And the small amount of ass kicking Gwtneth Paltrow was still far too much. Great: C+/ C... Probably a C+ for Kingsley, who's always great... And for Downey telling the kid to quit being a pussy...

Apparently quite a few like it, but I think I can safely day this is a monumentally unimportant film. It's sophomoric to the max and intended to be so. I even like some sophomoric movies. But aside from an occasional funny line, there's not much to applaud here.

Looney Christians, spell casters, magic, good and evil, or as they say in the film, "the light vs. the darkness." I liked this movie. It's fantasy, sometimes serious, but still a lot of fun. It's a story of teenage love between a mortal and one of the "others". The first half really kept me interested, and the second half slows down just enough to knock off a point. Not slow enough to come anywhere near boring, just slows down a bit. It does end in a climax, but the first part was more fun. I think some atheists might enjoy this movie.

'Man Of Steel', probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Kevin Costner, Russell Crow and a multitude of big names, a huge budget but,....... no real story, no real content, bad acting, bad script, and the worst directing in history. If you want an example of how NOT to make a big budget film, this is it.They tried to use a device of flash backs to give the story depth, but all they did was confuse and blur ANY possiblity of cohession and story continuity. Not good,....not good at all!!!!!!

'Man Of Steel', probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Kevin Costner, Russell Crow and a multitude of big names, a huge budget but,....... no real story, no real content, bad acting, bad script, and the worst directing in history. If you want an example of how NOT to make a big budget film, this is it.They tried to use a device of flash backs to give the story depth, but all they did was confuse and blur ANY possiblity of cohession and story continuity. Not good,....not good at all!!!!!!

Yeah. One critic said that about halfway through the movie, when Supes starts punching the shit out of Zod and his cronies, all the story stuff completely stops. They were building up stuff during the first half of the movie but that all just goes away during the second half. Maybe that build up wouldn't seem so empty and pretentious if it actually informed the punching later, but it doesn't so it does.

I did like one bit

[spoil:356v8evh]When Supes is destroying some machine that would help Zod rebuild Krypton on Earth, Zod begs him to stop saying they can rebuild Krypton or something... It sounded better in the movie. Supes pauses, like he's mulling over the choice and then says "Krypton had its chance." and goes back to wrecking shit. I appreciated this moment. Pity the rest of the movie didn't have more moments like that.[/spoil:356v8evh]

Whelp, the reviews of Lone Ranger are in and it looks like bad movies run in the family. (One internet to the first person to get that reference)

As such, I am now draw to go see it since I have a day off anyway and it's got that kind of train wreck magnetism. Although, I'm not sure if it's really as hilariously bad as, say, Exorcist II: the Heretic.

I can't help but wonder if this movie would have been better with Depp in the lead as the Ranger and an actual Native American actor as Tonto who was not dressed like a gay burlesque performer. I don't know if that would have worked, even with a different, better script after watching Depp play serious in the awful and forgettable Public Enemy. When doing serious roles, Depp turn into wood. Lebanese poplar, if I know my lumber. He just kind of stares into the middle distance because he's used to ooze charisma by just standing there chewing gum (see the TV show 21 Jumpstreet). Well, he's getting old and can't coast on his youthful good looks anymore. Too bad that's what his skill set relies upon. Yet he still makes money and there are people who actually think he's a good actor. I'm reminded of the piano player Ernie in Catcher In the Rye.

Quote

I'm not too sure what the name of the song was that he was playing when I came in, but whatever it was, he was really stinking it up. He was putting all these dumb, show-offy ripples in the high notes, and a lot of other very tricky stuff that gives me a pain in the ass. You should've heard the crowd, though, when he was finished. You would've puked. They went mad. They were exactly the same morons that laugh like hyenas in the movies at stuff that isn't funny. I swear to God, if I were a piano player or an actor or something and all those dopes thought I was terrific, I'd hate it. I wouldn't even want them to clap for me. People always clap for the wrong things. If I were a piano player, I'd play it in the goddam closet. Anyway, when he was finished, and everybody was clapping their heads off, old Ernie turned around on his stool and gave this very phony, humble bow. Like as if he was a helluva humble guy, besides being a terrific piano player. It was very phony--I mean him being such a big snob and all. In a funny way, though, I felt sort of sorry for him when he was finished. I don't even think he knows any more when he's playing right or not. It isn't all his fault. I partly blame all those dopes that clap their heads off--they'd foul up anybody, if you gave them a chance.

He doesn't know he's terrible because people keep telling him he's good. This is part of the reason why I don't make Youtube videos reviewing thirty year old video games. That and I'm pretty sure my voice is the brown noise.

So, yeah. Depp is terrible. Can't speak for Arm & Hammer Baking Soda. He might be a decent enough actor whose career will not recover from this. But these Disney action-adventure movies have been grating on me for a while now. I really hate Pirates. I hated Depp in that movie. I was expecting a swashbuckler and I got the foppish town drunk. The first sequel was better because it built on small things hinted at in the previous movie. But overall, they're just cynical crowd pleasers. They offer nothing deep or interesting, but they get asses in seats. That's all they really need to do, I suppose. Maybe turning Capt. Sparrow into a effeminate drunk was part of the plan, to not give us what we were expecting. To turn the genre on it's head. So they turned the Lone Ranger into a bumbling buffoon because they had already done the gay town drunk and made Tonto the real brains of the outfit. What next? Sherlock Holmes?

I hear it is an extremely random movie that, at one second is a family movie... the next a guy is having his heart ripped out and eaten infront of him. I think that might be part of the reason it has taken a hit from critics, because alot of people went in thinking it was just a normal family movie.

I hear it is an extremely random movie that, at one second is a family movie... the next a guy is having his heart ripped out and eaten infront of him. I think that might be part of the reason it has taken a hit from critics, because alot of people went in thinking it was just a normal family movie.

Yeah. They added some Wendigo stuff, apparently. (still hemming and hawing about seeing it. Maybe later) It does seem a bit much. Certainly out of the tone of PotC which this is no doubt trying to hit the same notes. Although PotC did have undead and some stuff that was probably a bit much for kids. Maybe cannibalism is not the same as undead rotting corpses. Maybe you can gloss over implied rape with trays of cakes, too.

The printer drivers on my laptop had become corrupted or something so I spent the day arguing with it trying to uninstall the old one so I could reinstall it. Last time I installed it, the driver from their website didn't work at all, but the boot disk that originally came with the printer did. But I forgot where I put it and tore apart my room trying to find it and eventually found it and it didn't work but I tried really, really uninstalling the old one and then the uninstall froze, so I rebooted the computer. I got it uninstalled and tried the download and the install froze. Hours of this shit. I finally got it to work, so I decided to take my aggression out on a bad movie. I knew Lone Ranger was still playing, so I went and well, where to begin?

Let me ask you a question: is Mask of Zorro still considered a good movie? Because that's the movie I'm reminded most of at this point. The more I think of it, the more I'm reminded. Both are modern versions of old characters that really haven't been very popular in decades. Both have an old west setting. Both take gross liberties with the original character. Both have cast a sidekick who is the completely wrong ethnicity to play the role. Both have a complicated plot that involve the bad guy doing some mining on the sly for personal gain, a personal vendetta with the #2 villain due to the main character's brother's murder. Both #2 villains have taken to cannibalism based on some ancient superstition about consuming the flesh of another means you gain their power. Both have a morally compromised US Cavalryman as if Dances With Wolves lost his moral compass and joined the bad guy. Both have spectacular set piece action scenes that involve cart rails and the main bad guy falling to his death or something similar, either falling with his ill-gotten ore of having it land on top of him, preferably both to be all ironic and shit. I'm actually kind of surprised how many similarities there are between these two movies. I suspect the writing team sat down with a bunch of DVDs and Mask of Zorro was the one during which they took the most notes.

That said, it doesn't feel like a complete rip-off of Mask of Zorro. It's not a note-for-note retread and there's enough different that it really didn't hit me how similar they were until I was driving home. There are a lot of problems with Lone Ranger, but I think it's unfair is Zorro gets a pass on the same fucking shit. Has that much changed in fifteen years? Maybe. Eddie Murphy got a lot of shit for his Asian character in Norbit, but twenty years earlier, that shit was hilarious in his stand up. How times change.

One difference I can think of is Mask of Zorro wasn't named "The Lone Ranger." Not because they had different character. What I mean is it wasn't called "Zorro." The words "Mask of" says this is a Zorro story, not the Zorro story. The title "Lone Ranger" indicates this is a definitive version of the character. I wonder if Lone Ranger would be getting as much heat if it was called Mask of the Lone Ranger.

I said there were problems with Lone Ranger and the big one is the framing device they used, set in 1932 San Francisco where a little kid dressed as the Lone Ranger circa 1950 (because the Lone Ranger looked like this (http://http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/2013/07/02/pulse/web_photos/MBDLORAEC015063714--525x400.jpg) in 1932) goes into a wild west exhibit and in a diorama next to a stuffed buffalo is an elderly Tonto who is supposedly telling the kid this story. This framing device is bad. Bad, bad, bad. The movie would lose nothing but it's padded running time if it were cut. Well, it would lose one thing: Tonto begins his tale when he and the Ranger rob a bank. This is set up that pays off later when it's revealed why they are robbing a bank and what they actually take from the bank and why. This set up and pay off is pretty good, but it should have been achieved without this framing device because it still doesn't justify the annoying kid and the even more annoying elderly Tonto.

Despite what you may have heard that Armie Hammer's John Reid/Lone Ranger takes a back seat to Tonto, I think they're on fairly equal footing. Or maybe, the backstory is mostly Tonto while the current story is all about Reid. Hammer does a decent enough job as a guy who is in no way cut out for this kind of thing. I don't know if I'd call him a great talent or even memorable. He's a generic Hollywood handsome guy who's competent but nothing special.

But that could be because the script doesn't give him a lot to work with. He plays the bookish DA and brother to a Texas Ranger whose wife he still has a thing for and the feeling is mutual, and the brother knows it, so the dying wish "take care of her for me" is a shock to no one. More shocking is his death and resurrection with Tonto filling his head with mumbo jumbo about it not being possible for him to be killed and a white "spirit horse" that has a mind of its own, like Gus the wonder mule. All of this gets thrust upon him while he tries to get revenge for his brother by bringing the murder to justice like a good little DA until he learns how deep this corruption goes and why.

The elephant in the room is, naturally, Johnny Depp as Tonto. When I had first heard he was cast in the role, I rolled my eyes at how bad this was going to be. Then I saw the pictures of him in his make-up and I was dumbstruck because it looked even worse than I imagined. Finding out that this look is based on a painting (http://http://cbsjackontheweb.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/original.jpg) really doesn't help how silly it looks. I don't care if Depp's claims to a Native American heritage are true or not. He's an American. Of course he has a little in him. Fuck, I'm part Seneca. A very small piece and I wouldn't even bother trying to pretend I could pass myself off as one in a fucking movie. Especially since there are no doubt tons, TONS of actors who are more than 1/32 Native American who could do the part.

The other problem with Depp is during the pre-release hype he said some stupid shit about redressing the injustices visited upon Native Americans by Jay Silverheels's portrayal of the character on TV.

Quote from: "Johnny Depp"

I started thinking about Tonto and what could be done in my own small way toÖ"Eliminate" isn't possible - but reinvent the relationship, to attempt to take some of the ugliness thrown on the Native Americans, not only in The Lone Ranger, but the way Indians were treated throughout history of cinema, and turn it on its head.

Frankly, I found his portrayal to be just as racist as any. He spoke a kind of broken English that reminded me of the SNL skit As World Turn (http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OItGmJ9nAXk). I really didn't find it a very progressive portrayal.

That said, the quote above refers to the relationship between the Ranger and Tonto. I really don't know what their relationship used to be. I don't think I ever watched any reruns of the show. Maybe once when I was like five years old. Most I know about it comes from Bill Cosby (http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzJ8cCU0nX4). The gist, as I gather, is that Tonto acted like a manservant or employee. This works in Green Hornet, where Kato is literally his chauffeur. But how much does the Ranger pay Tonto? None of that is here. The Ranger and Tonto are largely equal who often work to cross purposes with one another. Twice the Ranger keeps him from killing a bad guy, only to regret it later. Most of Tonto's story takes place in flashback where he made a deal with the bad guys and they wiped out his village as a result. He's taken it into his head that the bad guys were mystical creatures and that a spirit walker, someone who comes back from the dead, will help him. So naturally when the Ranger comes back from the dead with the help of a mystical white horse-- long story-- , he assumes this is the guy, but is disappointed since he'd seen that guy in action during the opening action set piece and would have rather had the brother.

So, we got a lot of stuff working here is a plot of conspiracy and stuff, that really isn't hard to figure out how the big bad is when he first shows up on screen, but it's a decent enough plot that tied the origins of the Ranger and Tonto together, even though both stories are decades apart. Tonto's story had been going on for a long time and his sanity is questionable and he's just ready to finish it while the Ranger's story had just begun and he's not ready to do what needs to be done just yet and these two guys alternatively help each other and get in each others' way while learn just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

So, uh, yeah. As much as I wanted to hate this movie, I really couldn't find it in me to hate it. It's not a great movie, but I enjoyed it more than that fucking Superman movie. I guess it depends on whether you still think Mask of Zorro was any good, or if you think it would have been just as good without Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta Jones.

So, uh, yeah. As much as I wanted to hate this movie, I really couldn't find it in me to hate it. It's not a great movie, but I enjoyed it more than that fucking Superman movie. I guess it depends on whether you still think Mask of Zorro was any good, or if you think it would have been just as good without Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta Jones.

Strange that you would want to spend money to see a movie that you walked in wanting to hate....

Haven't seen Lone Ranger. Saw Zorro. I remember I enjoyed it and Jones was hot, but, long forgot any plot details.

Took my teen daughter to see it over the weekend... some minor spoilers:

Not saying anything anyone doesn't already know, but the only thing this movie had in common with the Max Brooks novel was: A) The title, and B) it had zombies. That's it. I knew this going in, so vowed to view it independent of the book.

Typical summer blockbuster fare: lots of special effects, explosions, etc. Not a lot of plot or character development. Not an awful movie, but not great either. Brad Pitt's character is basically a super-hero, escaping one close call after another. It gets harder to swallow as the movie goes on. Why not just cast Schwarzenegger in the role? Characters do and say a lot things that don't make sense. Typical movie written and re-written by a committee of Hollywood screen writers, who cannot come up with any original material of their own, but are 100% self-assured they can take someone else's original material and "make it better".

But BY FAR the BIGGEST problem I had was in the opening monologue, Pitt's character opines that the world-wide airline system was the perfect mechanism to spread the disease. But you go on to discover that the infection turns a healthy person into a zombie in a matter of seconds after being bitten. So how would the airlines be able to spread the infection? You'd know if someone was infected because they would turn into a zombie before they even cleared security or the trip to the airport, for that matter. This made NO SENSE; there is no way a virus that acted that quickly would be able to spread around the world - it would be too easy to identify carriers and contain it.

In a lot of ways, it reminded me of "28 Days Later": fast zombies, instant infection, world collapses overnight, etc.

I give it a 3 for the acting, and for a semi original story (though it reminds me a bit of a new Twilight Zone episode). Other than that it is just bad, bad, and stupid.

Spoilers ahead.It attempts to have deep meaning, but fails on every level. I think the point the movie is trying to make by the end is that humans can express freewill, and change Gods plan if they are willing to sacrifice and/or work hard for that change. The problem is that the movie contradicts itself on both of these points.

It is shown, and even told to the main character by one of the agents, aka angels, that there is a grand plan and that everyone and everything is included in it, down to minute details. Historically, the Chairman (aka God), has let humanity have freewill in the past, and humanity created the dark ages (which God kindly rectified with the renaissance), and WW1, WW2, and almost WW3, which God also stopped BTW.While Gods plan is in action, if anyone does anything that remotely interferes with it, angels will come and make adjustments to get it back on track, and those adjustments include CHANGING THE WAY A HUMAN THINKS in order to fit back in with Gods plan. This equates to not one once of free will or choice.

At the same time, they try and throw in this wrench of "random chance". The main characters mother was killed, not according to Gods plan, but just by random chance. Note that they call it that, random chance, and not free will when talking about it. This is a problem inside the movie premise for so many obvious reasons, the biggest being that the "Chairman" is not all seeing OR all powerful, even though it is implied both earlier and later in the movie that he is both.

By the end of the movie, they tell us that these 2 people have shown such love and dedication to each other, and willingness to sacrifice for each other, that God, sorry I mean the Chairman, has decided to change his plan to allow it. Again, the problem here is that it is explained to the audience AND to the main character earlier in the movie that the reason these two people are so connected, and so drawn to each other, is that in all earlier versions of "The Plan", from the moment of each of their births they are meant to be together for life! God has designed it for these 2 people to fall in love, marry, and spend their lives together and everything was aiming them at this until, in 2005 for no reason at all given in the movie, the plan is changed and they are no longer allowed to be together. This isn't choice, they have been designed their entire life to react the way they are, this is NOT CHOICE. One angel lies to them and tells them it will ruin both their dreams if they stay together (and that succeeds in keeping them apart for a time), but that is revealed by another angel as a lie, and NO REAL REASON FOR THE CHANGE is EVER given! Maybe God is just a dick and wants to see what will happen when he changes his plan? And why does he ever need to change the plan anyway? Ever? It makes no sense.

Also, the magic hats that the angels have to wear to use their powers (and that angels cannot do magic in the rain?? Or underwater??). I dock the movie 5 whole points just for this extremely retarded plot device.

I know this is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, but really it isn't at all, not even loosely. They have NOTHING in common except that there are non-human human-looking creatures that adjust things in our world. What they are, how and why they do it, and everything about the main characters are totally different.

Overall, if you see this movie for free on Netflix and the trailer looks interesting, you are wrong. You will be more entertained watching commercials or a Tyler Perry movie.I give this movie 3-1/2 thumbs down.

I watched 12.45678 minutes of "Les Miserables". It is a musical.....so they say...kinda mix of opera and a musical,,some musicals have talking, most opera is all singing, so for the 12.45678 minutes I saw it was all singing,, not good mind you, actually pretty fuckin awful...really awful....stinkin. But I gave it a chance..all in all it is worthy of a number that must be adjusted for your like of musicals against your like of trying to be good actors acting good but unable to sing a fuckin lick, and bad acting against not being able to sing a fuckin lick. Somewhere in the movie I was assured it was going to get good, but I couldn't take the chance that I would not kill myself before I saw that part so I had to quit early. I almost regret not seeing the rest of it if only I had thought I might not kill myself, but the urge was too great... I would give it a score but that might make some of you want to see it and then you might blame me...fuck you!

For Your Eyes Only.Welcome departure from Moonraker's goofyness. The storyline is thin and filled with holes, like a slice of swiss cheese, but the stunts are top-notch (ever since the Moore days, Eon productions kept raising the bar on stunts, from Live And Let Die's crocodile-walk to Casino Royale's parcour-chase). The carchase with the yellow CitroŽn 2cV is a classic. Probably Moore's best 007 preformance.8/10

I watched 12.45678 minutes of "Les Miserables". It is a musical.....so they say...kinda mix of opera and a musical,,some musicals have talking, most opera is all singing, so for the 12.45678 minutes I saw it was all singing,, not good mind you, actually pretty fuckin awful...really awful....stinkin. But I gave it a chance..all in all it is worthy of a number that must be adjusted for your like of musicals against your like of trying to be good actors acting good but unable to sing a fuckin lick, and bad acting against not being able to sing a fuckin lick. Somewhere in the movie I was assured it was going to get good, but I couldn't take the chance that I would not kill myself before I saw that part so I had to quit early. I almost regret not seeing the rest of it if only I had thought I might not kill myself, but the urge was too great... I would give it a score but that might make some of you want to see it and then you might blame me...fuck you!

I really don't like musicals, except for the Blues Brothers. When I was a little kid, my friend and I would go to the Saturday matinee for a great time. Once we thought we were going to see a western named Oklahoma. It was OK until they broke out in their first song. Man I was bummed. I probably went unknowingly to 5 movies that turned out to be wretched musicals. When I would discover what I had paid my quarter for, I would get a lump in my stomach. You know the kind of lump you get when your dog dies. :-&

I didn't think it was a very good movie, but if you still haven't had enough of the Transformers after the third sequel, you may like this. It's clearly a Transformers inspired film, but without the humor. The Transformer like things are either robots controlled by humans, or gigantic sea monsters that are protoplasm based. There is some visual appeal. The special effects are well done and the sets look very real.

The hero is played by some guy, and he works with the heroine, played by some woman, as they control one robot (it takes two humans to run a robot and the humans must be in a mind meld so they can coordinate the left and right sides of the robot). The long war has become a losing battle against the deadly sea monsters bent on destroying Earth, because, well, that's just the nature of sea monsters. Fighter jets and low altitude bombers have proven to be ineffective. Apparently, the only way to kill a sea monster is in hand to hand combat involving battle cries, and some pre-engagement tough guy bravado that the robots are directed to do before they actually start to fight. I gave it a six because I didn't fall asleep, but I was kind of happy when it ended.

Saw 'Loneranger'. It was awful. What native American is going to ever say "perhaps" in the 1880's? Many problems with believabilty, storyline, continuity, and charactor development. The plot was terrible and a sad excuse to base the obvious camp special effects of the movie. I can't see this thing turning into a franchise, which is the intent of the producers. There is nowhere for it to go....at all. It's not that they wrote a sufficient ending. It's that they didn't even write a real story.I like Depp but making a camp western sortof comedy and renaming Captain Sparrow, Tonto is just stupid. They even used the same stunt from the 'Pirates of the Carribian' in one of the scenes.Oh and BTW, "Tonto" was an Apache, ala the Tonto tribe of southern New Mexico. How can Tonto be a Comanche?It shows that some movie companies will spend millions just for the sensation of doing so and use sell tactics to recoup their investment. I didn't pay for my viewing, can't really tell you how I could pull that off. Let's just say I have a very innovative neighbor that likes movies.

Saw 'Loneranger'. It was awful. What native American is going to ever say "perhaps" in the 1880's? Many problems with believabilty, storyline, continuity, and charactor development. The plot was terrible and a sad excuse to base the obvious camp special effects of the movie. I can't see this thing turning into a franchise, which is the intent of the producers. There is nowhere for it to go....at all. It's not that they wrote a sufficient ending. It's that they didn't even write a real story.I like Depp but making a camp western sortof comedy and renaming Captain Sparrow, Tonto is just stupid. They even used the same stunt from the 'Pirates of the Carribian' in one of the scenes.Oh and BTW, "Tonto" was an Apache, ala the Tonto tribe of southern New Mexico. How can Tonto be a Comanche?It shows that some movie companies will spend millions just for the sensation of doing so and use sell tactics to recoup their investment. I didn't pay for my viewing, can't really tell you how I could pull that off. Let's just say I have a very innovative neighbor that likes movies.

It's typical Hollywood shit, written by committee. See my comments on WWZ, above

Hmmm... well, since I only saw the first Transformer's and thought it was okay, I might like it then.

I still like the 1st Transformers a lot. 2nd, not quite as good. But I lost interest after the 3rd. So my reaction to this movie may just be a case of overload. I wouldn't tell people to avoid it.

yeah the 1st was kinda fun without having to think alot about the physics of a thing the size of a camaro being able to transform into something 10 times larger, not just in size but mass. Even advanced technology has a difficult time with that.

I had fun watching Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn mainly because I loved the creativity of the early Halo games. When I finally got to see Master Chief wreck some covenant asses in an actual movie (compilation of a web series, actually) it felt liberating and I nearly fanboyed.

At one point I believe I yelled: "IT'S A PLASMA SWORD HELL YEAH."

I was a classic action movie and had no real major development. I give it a 7/10 in comparison to better movies, but because of my bias my ebullience has boosted the score to 8/10.

Pacific Rim - I have to disagree with SGOS here. The only thing this movie has in common with Transformers is the fact that there are robots and aliens and action. Aside from that, this movie has a serious tone, it treats its main characters like people with issues, and it uses science in it as opposed to simply fighting and destroying the monsters. I actually loved the movie. I saw complaints that there was too much action. This I did not understand. I believe an HOUR went by without any action. Not to mention, what more do you expect from a movie about aliens attacking Earth and us fighting them to the death? I think Del Toro did an amazing job with a simple concept.

Hmmm... well, since I only saw the first Transformer's and thought it was okay, I might like it then.

I still like the 1st Transformers a lot. 2nd, not quite as good. But I lost interest after the 3rd. So my reaction to this movie may just be a case of overload. I wouldn't tell people to avoid it.

yeah the 1st was kinda fun without having to think alot about the physics of a thing the size of a camaro being able to transform into something 10 times larger, not just in size but mass. Even advanced technology has a difficult time with that.

The 1st IS fun, with some exceptionally funny lines. I wondered about the transformations in mass too, but it wasn't a movie anyone expects to take seriously enough to ponder for long. I didn't see that movie until a couple of years after it came out. I was out of movies to watch on my Netflix, and rented it out of desperation, but was pleasantly surprised.

Pacific Rim - I have to disagree with SGOS here. The only thing this movie has in common with Transformers is the fact that there are robots and aliens and action.... I saw complaints that there was too much action.

There was too much action for me, to the point where I actually became bored. I have the same complaint about Transformers 2 and 3.

Why does The Rick Copeland, who like many hates most musicals, associate "Les Miserables" with one of The Rick Copeland's arch-enemies: Andrew Lloyd Weber? He's certain Weber had nothing to do with neither the play nor the movie, but he just links the two together. Maybe it is the infinitely binding and ethereal but always perceptible thread of suck? That mental association is enough for him to treat it like a radioactive recording of Nathan Lane...

I had fun watching Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn mainly because I loved the creativity of the early Halo games. When I finally got to see Master Chief wreck some covenant asses in an actual movie (compilation of a web series, actually) it felt liberating and I nearly fanboyed.

At one point I believe I yelled: "IT'S A PLASMA SWORD HELL YEAH."

I was a classic action movie and had no real major development. I give it a 7/10 in comparison to better movies, but because of my bias my ebullience has boosted the score to 8/10.

Man of Steel: 6/10 Great action, great motion, essentially workable, stuffy story.But yeah, I saw the Superman = Jesus stuff too. Maybe it was just me, but

1. Superman strikes the Jesus-pose as he leaves Zod's ship above Earth.2. Superman has two dads, and one of them knows "Clark was sent here for a reason."3. The super-alien man who can fly goes to church for advice.4. The supergirl-villian's speech talks about how they're somehow more "evolutionarily advanced" than Supes, because they were tank-bred. While that's obviously genetic engineering, her Bad Guy one-liner is "Evolution always wins!"5. In this version, Supes has a special birth, unlike the rest of Kryptonian society.

One or two alone, and I wouldn't have noticed. But I has a very uneasy feeling about halfway through the movie, until it dropped the metaphor for the fight scenes.

Well, Superman was a product of the 1940s, and thinking back to those days, there was a lot of bullshit going on, although no one thought it was bullshit. Wasn't Superman the one who fought for truth, justice, and the American Way? My, how post WWII. In fact, I think Like Captain America, it was all part of the propaganda machine. I'm not even sure why we needed the propaganda. The Big War was over. Who the Hell were we trying to fool? And for what purpose? Never the less, I thought Superman was great fun. It was a little kid's fantasy, being a misunderstood good guy who was indestructible. When the bullies at school got to be overwhelming, you could just imagine being Superman, and give those bullies their come-up-ins. That would fix them. They would all go running away and not bother you. That is assuming you chose to let them run away. Everything was your choice and all was under your ultimate control. Yay, Superman. Yay, for little kids everywhere!

World War Z 10/10It had nothing to do with the book, it had a [spoil:1s7ibs7q]happy[/spoil:1s7ibs7q] ending, they rushed the ending in our favor to now draw it out like 28 days later, and they [spoil:1s7ibs7q]provided a simple solution[/spoil:1s7ibs7q]. It was short, to the point, and came to a proper end. No complaints.

Saw ST:into darkness. called shady friend, put a hit out on abrams. That will put an end to that crap. Seriously, who told this guy he knew anything about star trek? The movie was riddled with deux ex mechina, plot contrivances, and inane dialog. Hint to star fleet, if your running a secret project at least check ID's before you let people in. (spoiler alert) if you can get your buddies into the bombs why couldn't you just wake them up? It would have been simpler. To any grousers I point out that I grew up on the original series. I remember watching it when it first came out in 1966.

something called "The Host" or "Host"....meh.... interesting if your vehicle doesn't run and its raining like crazy and the TV is down and it came by accident via Netflix to your address and it is the only movie to watch .... and yer not feeling well and drank a half bottle of ny-quil. I think then it is pretty good.

something called "The Host" or "Host"....meh.... interesting if your vehicle doesn't run and its raining like crazy and the TV is down and it came by accident via Netflix to your address and it is the only movie to watch .... and yer not feeling well and drank a half bottle of ny-quil. I think then it is pretty good.

something called "The Host" or "Host"....meh.... interesting if your vehicle doesn't run and its raining like crazy and the TV is down and it came by accident via Netflix to your address and it is the only movie to watch .... and yer not feeling well and drank a half bottle of ny-quil. I think then it is pretty good.

something called "The Host" or "Host"....meh.... interesting if your vehicle doesn't run and its raining like crazy and the TV is down and it came by accident via Netflix to your address and it is the only movie to watch .... and yer not feeling well and drank a half bottle of ny-quil. I think then it is pretty good.

I saw White House Down tonight and it was far more entertaining than I expected. Warning, what comes next is riddled with massive spoilers.

The movie is one massive cacophony of gunfire and explosions with an extreme liberal bent to the plot. This movie is undeniably intended to enjoyed by a left of center audience and to be totally honest, I fucking loved it. This film didn't try to hide the fact that it was a big middle finger to the right.

-the terrorists ( aside from an ex delta force operator and hacker) are all angry, white conservatives and racists-

-the big bad guy is the GOP speaker of the house who tries to cheat his way into power and further fuel the military industrial complex.

- there is one character that is a painfully obvious parody of Rush Limbaugh.

It may be stupid or immature but damn it if I didn't love watching 2 hours of angry white men getting their asses wrecked by a black, liberal president and Channing Tatum.

I kind liked it. Humorous and heartwarming. Quite a few Invader Zim-ish moments as well.

But a couple things about it bothered me. *fair warning, nyquil and insomnia don't mix*

[spoil:1zyzzpn8]Where the hell are the cops in this universe? Because shooting up a Starbucks gets you like 3 stars in GTA.

Who the hell would really be fooled by a inflatable pyramid? That's like some Ghost Army stuff.

What's the point of stealing famous landmarks? Sure, there's the fame, sorta (quick show of hands: anyone know who briefly stole The Scream painting? Exactly.) But other than that, there's no real point. How about, oh I dunno, conquering the world? Too much?

Why do the criminal masterminds need loans? Don't they, yanno, steal? Seems like the slightly more viable option. Or hell, just sell those dancing robots. People love that stuff. You could be the richest bastard on the face of the planet that way.

The shrink ray is high-octane nightmare fuel. Apparently, it's not an instantaneous process and even more disturbingly, the subject shrinks asymmetrically. For a living subject, that's pretty much a guaranteed and excruciatingly painful death, cartoon physics notwithstanding.

How exactly does the shrink ray tell what objects to shrink and what not to shrink? Because shooting an airplane shrinks the plane but not its inhabitants, yet shooting the surface of the moon shrinks the entire moon, not just whatever part of the surface it hits. Considering the number of times the shrink ray been fired on Earth, I'm surprised that it has never shot the ground.

Does the shrink ray decrease mass along with volume? It'd have to, because otherwise shrunken objects would be ultradense. WTF happens to the mass? :-k

How the hell did the cookie robots reseal the breach they made? A huge chunk of the building fell to the ground. There's no way they could just put it back.

And what sort of kid wants a pancake shaped like a dead guy?! Cause I did like 4 years of therapy to not see dead people anymore.[/spoil:1zyzzpn8]

I kind liked it. Humorous and heartwarming. Quite a few Invader Zim-ish moments as well.

But a couple things about it bothered me. *fair warning, nyquil and insomnia don't mix*

[spoil:aosezxsx]Where the hell are the cops in this universe? Because shooting up a Starbucks gets you like 3 stars in GTA.

Who the hell would really be fooled by a inflatable pyramid? That's like some Ghost Army stuff.

What's the point of stealing famous landmarks? Sure, there's the fame, sorta (quick show of hands: anyone know who briefly stole The Scream painting? Exactly.) But other than that, there's no real point. How about, oh I dunno, conquering the world? Too much?

Why do the criminal masterminds need loans? Don't they, yanno, steal? Seems like the slightly more viable option. Or hell, just sell those dancing robots. People love that stuff. You could be the richest bastard on the face of the planet that way.

The shrink ray is high-octane nightmare fuel. Apparently, it's not an instantaneous process and even more disturbingly, the subject shrinks asymmetrically. For a living subject, that's pretty much a guaranteed and excruciatingly painful death, cartoon physics notwithstanding.

How exactly does the shrink ray tell what objects to shrink and what not to shrink? Because shooting an airplane shrinks the plane but not its inhabitants, yet shooting the surface of the moon shrinks the entire moon, not just whatever part of the surface it hits. Considering the number of times the shrink ray been fired on Earth, I'm surprised that it has never shot the ground.

Does the shrink ray decrease mass along with volume? It'd have to, because otherwise shrunken objects would be ultradense. WTF happens to the mass? :-k

How the hell did the cookie robots reseal the breach they made? A huge chunk of the building fell to the ground. There's no way they could just put it back.

And what sort of kid wants a pancake shaped like a dead guy?! Cause I did like 4 years of therapy to not see dead people anymore.[/spoil:aosezxsx]

It is a children's movie after all :rollin: . Not everything has to make sense, so long as the movie itself is entertaining and fit for a family to watch together.

I saw White House Down tonight and it was far more entertaining than I expected. Warning, what comes next is riddled with massive spoilers.

The movie is one massive cacophony of gunfire and explosions with an extreme liberal bent to the plot. This movie is undeniably intended to enjoyed by a left of center audience and to be totally honest, I fucking loved it. This film didn't try to hide the fact that it was a big middle finger to the right.

-the terrorists ( aside from an ex delta force operator and hacker) are all angry, white conservatives and racists-

-the big bad guy is the GOP speaker of the house who tries to cheat his way into power and further fuel the military industrial complex.

- there is one character that is a painfully obvious parody of Rush Limbaugh.

It may be stupid or immature but damn it if I didn't love watching 2 hours of angry white men getting their asses wrecked by a black, liberal president and Channing Tatum.

I'm surprised we didn't hear the right screaming about how much they hated this movie considering the way they had a meltdown over Avatar, which was a LOT less biased. Honestly, some parts of the movie confused me, and I honestly don't understand why the mercenary leader agreed to help the traitor get the nuclear football. All the same, it was good for all the reasons you just mentioned. Fuck the right.

There have been people on the right complaining that it puts the Military Industrial Complex in bad light... that the MIC would have no interest in conflicts being started. Besides, you know... that's how they make money... but ya know...

There have been people on the right complaining that it puts the Military Industrial Complex in bad light... that the MIC would have no interest in conflicts being started. Besides, you know... that's how they make money... but ya know...

There have been people on the right complaining that it puts the Military Industrial Complex in bad light... that the MIC would have no interest in conflicts being started. Besides, you know... that's how they make money... but ya know...

How can a person put the military industrial complex in a good light?

A little money goes a long way.

(No, seriously... a LITTLE money... it's depressing how cheap politicians on both side of the isle can be bought for.)

There have been people on the right complaining that it puts the Military Industrial Complex in bad light... that the MIC would have no interest in conflicts being started. Besides, you know... that's how they make money... but ya know...

How can a person put the military industrial complex in a good light?

A little money goes a long way.

(No, seriously... a LITTLE money... it's depressing how cheap politicians on both side of the isle can be bought for.)

That's true but it seems like it would be exceeding difficult for a film. :Hangman:

I kind liked it. Humorous and heartwarming. Quite a few Invader Zim-ish moments as well.

But a couple things about it bothered me. *fair warning, nyquil and insomnia don't mix*

[spoil:16zbwhhg]Where the hell are the cops in this universe? Because shooting up a Starbucks gets you like 3 stars in GTA.

Who the hell would really be fooled by a inflatable pyramid? That's like some Ghost Army stuff.

What's the point of stealing famous landmarks? Sure, there's the fame, sorta (quick show of hands: anyone know who briefly stole The Scream painting? Exactly.) But other than that, there's no real point. How about, oh I dunno, conquering the world? Too much?

Why do the criminal masterminds need loans? Don't they, yanno, steal? Seems like the slightly more viable option. Or hell, just sell those dancing robots. People love that stuff. You could be the richest bastard on the face of the planet that way.

The shrink ray is high-octane nightmare fuel. Apparently, it's not an instantaneous process and even more disturbingly, the subject shrinks asymmetrically. For a living subject, that's pretty much a guaranteed and excruciatingly painful death, cartoon physics notwithstanding.

How exactly does the shrink ray tell what objects to shrink and what not to shrink? Because shooting an airplane shrinks the plane but not its inhabitants, yet shooting the surface of the moon shrinks the entire moon, not just whatever part of the surface it hits. Considering the number of times the shrink ray been fired on Earth, I'm surprised that it has never shot the ground.

Does the shrink ray decrease mass along with volume? It'd have to, because otherwise shrunken objects would be ultradense. WTF happens to the mass? :-k

How the hell did the cookie robots reseal the breach they made? A huge chunk of the building fell to the ground. There's no way they could just put it back.

And what sort of kid wants a pancake shaped like a dead guy?! Cause I did like 4 years of therapy to not see dead people anymore.[/spoil:16zbwhhg]

You are WAAAAAYYY overthinking it, mate. Also, I thought the "camouflaged" pyramid was meant to be silly....like, we could all see it, he just thought he was being cool.

I didn't think it was as bad as the reviews. The action set pieces were pretty spectacular. Now, the father/son issues didn't really work. And the wisecracks were just not up to snuff at all. So, no, it wasn't great. But, it was watchable. Maybe a 6/10

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

I thought it about the worst movie I ever watched all the way through. The only reason I did was the woman next to me watched and said it wasn't bad. No, it wasn't bad, it was terrible. 1.5/10

Identity Thief

It wasn't great. But, hey, I thought it was at least watchable. 5/10

I started to watch GI Joe 2 or whatever its called. Got about 15 minutes in and turned it off.

Octopussy has the superior stunts (though you have to wait untill the third act to see them), and NSNA is the bastard offspring of Thunderball with a shitty soundtrack, but the latter IS that last and I mean LAST chance to see Sean Connery fucking owning the Bond part, and it has this video-game duel that's goofy as fuck but hense also memorable as fuck, Clause Maria Brandaur is creepy as fuck, and Barbara Carera is hot as fuck (trumping Kim fucking Basingers preformance for crying out loud), so fuck those who dump on NSNA for having an M-part writen so poorly that even Edward Fox couldn't save it, or how it has Mr Bean prancing around some scenes for some odd reason... it also has the best and brownest Felix Leiter ever, and the former includes the following line: "Octopussy...Octopussy..."Both are cheesefests and guilty pleassures, but in the end I must hand the double-o' cheesecrown to Sean Connery.

A series of 10 or so unrelated short films absurdly strung together by an idiotic plotline. Most of the vignettes confuse "gross and repulsive" with comedy. A couple are disgusting. After 90 minutes of having my sensibilities assaulted, I'm less of a person than I was before.

I don't like horror movies but agreed to see "The Conjuring" yesterday with some friends. Unfortunately for the people in the theater I burst into uncontrollable laughter in the first scene. Apparently I'm the only person who thought this scene was hysterical. I tried to regain my composure but then that cracked-out doll would show up again and I would just lose it! Anyway, the movie as a whole didn't do it for me, but I got a good laugh.

I just saw "Now you see me". Quite a good movie and I would highly recommend it. Very good plot and action scenes that you wouldn't expect from a Magician Drama. You can get it on Graboid if you desire.

Saw it twice, once in 2D then again in IMAX 3D because I felt like the scale and spirit of the movie deserved the extra screen real estate. I wasn't disappointed. I think I may love this movie too much. I also just heard that Del Toro got the green light to start writing the script for a sequel, which is awesome.

The Wolverine - While it has its problems, it most definitetly is better than the first one which was GOD awful.

STAY FOR WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE CREDITS!

Grade: B-

Due to odd circumstances, I also got to see this today. I found it pretty meh. I didn't see the last three X-Men movies, including the last Wolverine solo picture, so I can't really compare it to any of them.

I didn't care for it, but I recall a Wolverine mini-series from the 80's that this flick is probably based upon and I didn't care about that, either. Just not into seeing Wolverine deal with Japan. What is this? Lost in Translation?

Looking at it objectively, it has some action and a plot where things happen. The cast is mostly Japanese-- or at least Asian-- with a large group of characters with different personal goals that interconnected. This could have been really confusing but I was able to keep track of who was who fairly easily. Maybe it's because it wasn't as complicated as it might have seemed. It is a dumb comic book plot and fairly predictable as a result.

One thing I did notice is it seemed to drag things out. This is not unique to Wolverine. I notice a lot of movies and tv shows drag things out needlessly. It was particularly bad in Watchmen because when I read the comic, I imagined the dialog and fast paced and punchy but the movie added lots of dramatic pauses that were unnecessary and just didn't work. Wolverine is like that and I didn't even read the comic it's based on. So it's not a matter of comparison to the source material.

Overall, I don't know if I can recommend it to anyone. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but nothing particularly good about it, either. I guess if you're a Wolverine fanboy, you might enjoy it. But if you are, then you were probably going to see it anyway.

So what was with that one superhero in Watchmen who always had is big wang hanging out whenever he was in his superhero mode? That's about all I remember from the movie. All of the other characters acted like it was perfectly normal for him to walk around with his wang out. No one looked at it or looked away. It blows away Thor's hammer, Batman's cape, or Wolverine's claws as one of the strangest superhero gimmicks any writer could ever come up with.

So what was with that one superhero in Watchmen who always had is big wang hanging out whenever he was in his superhero mode?

It was a kind of gag. He was a being made of energy, kind of like the Silver Surfer, except those characters always materialized without their junk intact. So the comic makers decided to lat their energy being character have a dick. In the comic, his penis was rarely seen with the use of clever angles and such. In the movie, they didn't have that luxury or Zach Snyder wanted to see a blue wang bobbing around. The other characters didn't notice because they were used to it and the movie didn't start Ashton Kutcher.

Hypnotic? Most definitely! Frightening? Potentially, because he doesn't need Iron Man's suit, Batman's throwing weapons, or Captain America's shield. He just levitates in with his wang, and renders criminals incapacitated by his presence. He doesn't need anything, not even a nice looking pair of plaid boxer shorts and cool sunglasses. But I can't get far enough past his wang to find it frightening. :-D

LOL love 'Watchmen"... I have the original 10 issue series in plastic from 1986.

Did you buy those at a collectors shop? How much is something like that worth?

I had a ton of comics when I was little, but they were all Little Lulu or Disney type characters, probably not worth what Marvel and DC comics are, but my parent's wouldn't let me buy the adult ones. We all had tons of baseball trading cards too, but I would imagine most of my friends ended up putting those one day valuables in the trash like I did. If only I had a crystal ball. It reminds me of that movie, Blast from the Past, when Brandon Frazier finds out how much those trading cards were worth.

"Body Heat": William Hurt is a shitty lawyer with a cheesy moostache and a perpetual boner. Kathleen Turner (pre-bloat phase) is a woman married to a Florida real estate tycoon and has the voice of Lauren Bacall, the hair of Veronica Lake, and really great legs. Together they sweat, fuck, sweat, perform oral sex on each other, sweat, plot to kill her husband Richard Crenna, sweat, kill him and use a fake will to get all his money, then things start to go to shit.

It's one of those very noirish movies along the line of "Chinatown" but closer to "Double Indemnity" in over all feel and plot-- that is if Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck liked to fuck. Director/ Writer Lawrence Kasdan (who has written, among other things "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has a great ear for that cheesy 1930's dialogue and rachets up the wold of shit Hurt gets into quite nicely. But he should have learned his lesson when Turner looks at him and says "you're not very bright. I like that in a man". Plus you get nice performances from young Ted Danson and a freakishly young Mickey Rourke as Hurt's arsonist client/ buddy (?). If you like this sort of genre and haven't seen it, you probably should. It seems somewhat tamer now but probably caused more boners in 1981 than any other mainstream movie. 8/10

The Bourne Legacy on HBO. 6 of 10. Renner is good in the part, Rachel Weisz credible as a conflicted government scientist. Good action, etc. but the movie was very formulaic- you can predict the chase scenes and plot development after the first 15 minutes. Almost a carbon copy of the previous Bourne films in terms of plot vs outcome. I would see a sequel on HBO, wouldn't waste money in a theater.

Don't let the half rating mislead you, I loved this movie, but it was more special effects than plot. There was an interesting plot but I feel like it wasn't developed enough. Mostly this movie was more of the same CGI special effects jerk offs that America loves, and that's why I had to give it a half rating.

"Body Heat": William Hurt is a shitty lawyer with a cheesy moostache and a perpetual boner. Kathleen Turner (pre-bloat phase) is a woman married to a Florida real estate tycoon and has the voice of Lauren Bacall, the hair of Veronica Lake, and really great legs. Together they sweat, fuck, sweat, perform oral sex on each other, sweat, plot to kill her husband Richard Crenna, sweat, kill him and use a fake will to get all his money, then things start to go to shit.

It's one of those very noirish movies along the line of "Chinatown" but closer to "Double Indemnity" in over all feel and plot-- that is if Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck liked to fuck. Director/ Writer Lawrence Kasdan (who has written, among other things "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has a great ear for that cheesy 1930's dialogue and rachets up the wold of shit Hurt gets into quite nicely. But he should have learned his lesson when Turner looks at him and says "you're not very bright. I like that in a man". Plus you get nice performances from young Ted Danson and a freakishly young Mickey Rourke as Hurt's arsonist client/ buddy (?). If you like this sort of genre and haven't seen it, you probably should. It seems somewhat tamer now but probably caused more boners in 1981 than any other mainstream movie. 8/10

The Rick Copeland had always seen bit and pieces of it here and there, but boner problems prevented seeing it in full. You might be surprised how many on this board might not have ever even heard of it...

The Rick Copeland had always seen bit and pieces of it here and there, but boner problems prevented seeing it in full. You might be surprised how many on this board might not have ever even heard of it...

Don't let the half rating mislead you, I loved this movie, but it was more special effects than plot. There was an interesting plot but I feel like it wasn't developed enough. Mostly this movie was more of the same CGI special effects jerk offs that America loves, and that's why I had to give it a half rating.

I feel like I'm one of the only people that disagrees with this lol. I felt as though it had a lot more talking in it than it did action. There really aren't too many fights in it. 3 in total, I believe.

I've read some reviews of this movie, and see that movie goers are giving it exceptionally high ratings. It's on my must see list, but I haven't seen this playing at any local theater within a 30 mile radius of where I live. This is not unusual. Often, exceptional and important films don't make to the mainstream movie theaters. Sometimes they show up in these funky little artsy fartsy theaters that don't specialize in mass appeal. At least around here that seems to be true.

Flew back home to the US yesterday. Saw a few more action movies on the plane to kill time.

Jack Reacher - Of course Cruise has many haters, and his religion is stupid. But, I generally enjoy his movies. Certainly nothing groundbreaking here. And a key villain was easy to spot. But, a pretty solid action thriller nonetheless. 7/10

Olympus Has Fallen - I think there was another recent movie with a similar plot. The basic plot is an extremely elaborate terrorist group takes control of the White House, and the hero has to save the day. Obviously you know the hero is going to in fact save the day. So, there is a lot of things you can guess. Still, within the formula, it was a pretty solid thriller too. 7/10

I am Legend - Not very new, but I hadn't seen it. Premise is similar to 28 Days Later, where a virus turns people into zombies. In "I am Legend", Will Smith's character is one of about 1% of the population that has immunity to the virus. We are told that about 90% of the population is killed by the virus quickly, and about 9% of the population turns into zombies. But that 9% has killed off most of the 1% with immunity, leaving very few normal survivors in total. Smith is also a doctor and researcher trying to find a cure. But, he is also going crazy living alone trying to survive. It has a good creepy feel to it. But, it seems to drag in places. 6/10.

So I finally went and saw that Pacific Rim thing. I liked it well enough, but I left feeling underwhelmed in some way and I can't quite put my finger on why.

Many critics and audience member noted the human drama was lacking. I'm not sure why as there was plenty going on to keep the viewer interested. Most of it is drawn very simply because it's paying homage to the giant robot genre. So naturally we have the hotshot main character who's like the best robot pilot ever but he got out of it when his copilot and brother is killed. Naturally he's brought back into action and there's a hot chick with issues up the yin yang to be his new copilot. Naturally there's a rival robot pilot who doesn't like him and shit. It's all staples, which is the point.

But that might be the problem. This isn't Top Gun with robots. The Australian rival guy isn't the Iceman to the main character's Maverick. It's not a dick waving contest to see who's the best. They have a critical mission to try and seal off the dimensional portal the monsters are coming from and he doesn't trust the main character or his new girlfriend. I think this would have been better as a series because this facet of the rival character isn't adequately explored. In an animated series, we could get some backstory and understanding for why he's such a prick. There's a hint that there's a reason for it besides being stock character #12, but since it isn't developed, it doesn't play as good if he were just a stock character. The attempts at making the character a bit more fleshed out backfired because they're not quite the rote cliches we've seen a million times before but they don't quite elevate them to something above that. So we don't understand them at all.

But, overall, the flick was fun. Lots of monsters getting punched in the face by robots. It's very PG-13. Kind of amazingly so. So it's not a bad movie to take your older kids to see. A better choice than that fucking Superman movie where the villain used some kind of gravity device on the city that threw debris up into the air several stories before slamming it back down again with increase gravity. It clear shows that among the debris were horrified and totally fucked people. Pacific Rim doesn't have anything quite like that. Well, one guy gets eaten, but there's a teaser or whatever during the credits you can show your kids to take the edge off that. There's other dead all over the place, but it isn't shown on screen like that. Otherwise, it's oddly kid-friendly, which only makes sense.

The only other reason I can think of for not liking the movie as much as I should is the post-apocalypse setting is just boring to me. I really don't like post-apocalypse type stuff. I didn't care for Mad Max. I didn't like The Stand. It may be part of the reason I don't give a shit for zombies. This is a purely personal thing, obviously, but the movie takes place many years after the monsters had been attacking for a while so the post-apocalypse feel is unmistakable.

Also in the feel is it never quite feels as desperate as the dialog would have us believe. I don't know why that is. It could be a budget constraint or a time constraint or the fact that despite these monsters killing thousands of people there still doesn't seem to be a shortage of the fucking things. People, that is. The robot program is being shut down in favor of building giant walls that were demonstrably completely ineffective. But this just doesn't gel. Not to the Humanity's Last Stand they try to sell it as. Irdis Alba has a motivational speech, which is in the trailers, that tries to be the St Crispian's Day speech from Henry V but doesn't even reach Bill Pullman's Independence Day speech. i don't know what it is, but for a movie about giant robots punching giant monsters, it feels awfully small.

Fun spoof on teen horror flicks. Maybe not the masterpiece that some are making it out to be but it is fairly clever. The bunker carnage scene was well done with a lot of the monsters getting some good kills in. Works well as a late night scary/silly movie.

In recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.

The two directors also predicted a decline in movie attendance because of this. But I wonder. The big special effects blockbusters are still topping the weekly box office stats, and are still making profits. I think that's what drives Hollywood to make them in the first place.

But it seems like a good story and special effects could reside in a movie together as a happy medium, simply by putting money into special effects and some thought into story telling. It does happen once in a while (The Avengers came close), so we know it's possible. OK, The Avengers might not be Shakespeare, but for movie going purposes, it's good enough.

But I crave a good story. My favorite movie in the last three years was the remarkably low budget Midnight in Paris, and I don't think it requires some special snobby intelligence to enjoy a movie like that. It's just a fun story. But when I think about it, that movie would have completely wrecked if the actors had to run down the streets screaming while being chased by giant robots.

I don't know what is more funny about that. The fact you mentioned that everyone has been aware of it for decades or the directors who said that are the directors who has become what they are for what they have been complaining.

I agree with you SGOS, but I also think that there is a limit to what to expect from every genre. If we expect a good plot and realistic human drama from a giant monster invading the planet movie, we need to get ready to settle down with Clover Field -which I loved. But if we want many monsters vs robots action we need to settle down with Pacific Rim I think. They would never do something strong at both ends. I am not even sure that they can do it.

Well I've noticed one thing (about my husband and me) is that we are now Harder to entertain. If we see a movie minus any bells and whistles - we've been a bit bored by it. Whereas say 10 years ago a drama (for drama's sake) would have been just fine. All the additional special effects and movies like Avatar, for example, now has our movie-need jacked-up. We are simply more difficult to entertain than we used to be. We now require good plot AND good production.

In recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.

George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history, he can go fuck himself with a VCR, acting all high-and-mighty. Add ontop of that becoming one of the greatest sell outs... oh fuck off George.

In recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.

George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history, he can go fuck himself with a VCR, acting all high-and-mighty. Add ontop of that becoming one of the greatest sell outs... oh fuck off George.

I don't know what is more funny about that. The fact you mentioned that everyone has been aware of it for decades or the directors who said that are the directors who has become what they are for what they have been complaining.

I agree with you SGOS, but I also think that there is a limit to what to expect from every genre. If we expect a good plot and realistic human drama from a giant monster invading the planet movie, we need to get ready to settle down with Clover Field -which I loved. But if we want many monsters vs robots action we need to settle down with Pacific Rim I think. They would never do something strong at both ends. I am not even sure that they can do it.

Well I've noticed one thing (about my husband and me) is that we are now Harder to entertain. If we see a movie minus any bells and whistles - we've been a bit bored by it. Whereas say 10 years ago a drama (for drama's sake) would have been just fine. All the additional special effects and movies like Avatar, for example, now has our movie-need jacked-up. We are simply more difficult to entertain than we used to be. We now require good plot AND good production.

special effects used to help tell the story, now the story is an excuse to show special effects.

The best effects are the ones you didn't even notice. too many times every thing is CGI'd which stands out like a sore thumb. No more creative camera work, modelling. just have a computer do it.

I don't know what is more funny about that. The fact you mentioned that everyone has been aware of it for decades or the directors who said that are the directors who has become what they are for what they have been complaining.

I agree with you SGOS, but I also think that there is a limit to what to expect from every genre. If we expect a good plot and realistic human drama from a giant monster invading the planet movie, we need to get ready to settle down with Clover Field -which I loved. But if we want many monsters vs robots action we need to settle down with Pacific Rim I think. They would never do something strong at both ends. I am not even sure that they can do it.

Well I've noticed one thing (about my husband and me) is that we are now Harder to entertain. If we see a movie minus any bells and whistles - we've been a bit bored by it. Whereas say 10 years ago a drama (for drama's sake) would have been just fine. All the additional special effects and movies like Avatar, for example, now has our movie-need jacked-up. We are simply more difficult to entertain than we used to be. We now require good plot AND good production.

special effects used to help tell the story, now the story is an excuse to show special effects.

The best effects are the ones you didn't even notice. too many times every thing is CGI'd which stands out like a sore thumb. No more creative camera work, modelling. just have a computer do it.

Totally agree. Personally, I think the movies of the mid-late 90s and early 2000s was our best time - combining story telling with newer special effect techniques. Somewhere around 2005-7 we seemed to get ALL about the effects and the stories vanished. And re-makes... wtf? Doesn't anyone have any good stories to tell any more? eesh

In recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.

George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history, he can go fuck himself with a VCR, acting all high-and-mighty. Add ontop of that becoming one of the greatest sell outs... oh fuck off George.

But....but..... I have Loved his movies. *pout*

Okay, I am thinking of Star Wars that, lets be honest... are not ground breaking (or even amazingly good normal) movies story telling wise.

Indiana Jones I do like though. And I love his movies, but as a story teller? Nah, he is garbage.

It's hard to find fault with American Graffiti and Indiana Jones, although I've never been a big fan of Star Wars. But Lucas has a long string of movies to his credit, most of which I've never seen. He kind of fell off the radar after that adult actor and little boy were killed in a scene where a helicopter crashes. Can't remember what movie that was. I don't know if that had an effect on his career or not.

Okay, I am thinking of Star Wars that, lets be honest... are not ground breaking (or even amazingly good normal) movies story telling wise.

Indiana Jones I do like though. And I love his movies, but as a story teller? Nah, he is garbage.

The good-guy vs the bad-guy is not supposed to be ground-breaking. And...... I'd have to admit that sometimes I just want entertainment. Sometimes I just don't care about the psychology of it all. Just a couple of hours of decompress.Still, however, I require a decent story line. There have been a few movies where others were Soooo impressed that left me with a huge "wtf" in my head - like The English Patient for example. I think the whole world was impressed with that one when I wanted to stick a fork in my own eye.Maybe my tastes are a bit askew.

There have been a few movies where others were Soooo impressed that left me with a huge "wtf" in my head - like The English Patient for example. I think the whole world was impressed with that one when I wanted to stick a fork in my own eye.Maybe my tastes are a bit askew.

I was socially out of step with that one, too. Everyone raved about it, but I missed whatever it was that was supposed to make it special.

In recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.

George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history, he can go fuck himself with a VCR, acting all high-and-mighty. Add ontop of that becoming one of the greatest sell outs... oh fuck off George.

It's hard to find fault with American Graffiti and Indiana Jones, although I've never been a big fan of Star Wars. But Lucas has a long string of movies to his credit, most of which I've never seen. He kind of fell off the radar after that adult actor and little boy were killed in a scene where a helicopter crashes. Can't remember what movie that was. I don't know if that had an effect on his career or not.

Lucas was the producer of the Indy movies but didn't direct them...thank god.

And as for American Graffiti, he was more driven by the artistic work over creating characters to merchandise. also, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

I think I had posted my theory that it was Indiana Jones that ruined Star Wars, and thus George Lucas.

But....but...I LOVE Indiana Jones.

You guys are killing me.*pout pout*

It has nothing to do with it.

It's a fairly well-known fact that the production of Raiders of the Lost Ark had problems, was rushed in places, and what Lucas disliked is a lot of "character" stuff was on the cutting room floor. Lucas was mostly absent during the production of Empire Strikes Back, but at that point he'd taken in the idea that people don't want character. They want a roller coast ride. Even saying that Empire would have made just as much money if it wasn't as good. What was that character stuff left out of Raiders? We don't know specifically what Lucas was the most upset about, but one element was that during the previous relationship between Indy and Marion she was under age. Some of the dialog remains:

"I was a child."

"You knew what you were doing."

Just wrap you head around that while remembering that Lucas's wife left him around the production of Return of the Jedi but left their adopted daughter in his care.

Is Lucas a pedophile or pedophile sympathizer who'd hoped to introduce to the world a hero that would have relations with under age girls the way Edward D Wood Jr tried to drum up sympathy and understanding for transvestites with Glen or Glenda? I honestly don't know. I'd like to think not. In either case, he got the idea that character and story is not what sells. He became the money man he'd founded Lucasfilm LTD to avoid. After Jedi, he took a rather long break from Star Wars and during that time, many of the people who'd help make Star Wars what it was had left Lucas and he surrounded himself with yes men and that's when things really started to suck.

We don't know specifically what Lucas was the most upset about, but one element was that during the previous relationship between Indy and Marion she was under age. Some of the dialog remains:

"I was a child."

"You knew what you were doing."

Eh, I could read that to mean she was young and naive and he took advantage of that, but not literally underage.

In any case, I'm easy to please. I enjoyed Star Wars, the original trilogy, very much. I enjoyed Indiana Jones very much. The first was the best, but the next two were fine.

The Star Wars prequels, not so much. But, they had some moments. The last Indiana Jones sort of the same. Nuking the fridge was stupid. But, it had some moments. I didn't utterly detest the new Star Wars or Indiana Jones. But clearly not the same as the originals.

I don't bother to bash Lucas. I know there is good reason to. But, hey, he did a lot of stuff I never could and despite his flaws, I've been entertained by at least some of his work. So, who am I to bash him? I'm not sad he's retired though, LOL.

And that magician movie looked total garbage, did you actually go and see it?

A page or two back I reviewed it. I took a trip to Europe, mainly business. But I stopped in Athens for a couple of days. Anyway, I watched a stack of movies on the plane since I can't sleep on planes. I normally like Carrel. And the woman in the seat next to me watched it and laughed a few times. So I asked what she was watching. She told me, and said it was decent. So I watched it. It was among the worst movies I've ever watched in its entirety. Usually I turn it off if it is that bad, but for some reason I don't know why, I just kept watching. What complete piece of shit. At least I didn't pay anything for it.

In recent interviews, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg made the comments that Hollywood had lost its way and forgotten how to tell stories as it focuses on budget busting special effects. Well, thank you Captain Obvious and Johnny Insight. People everywhere have been saying this for years.

George Lucas is one of the worst fucking story-tellers in Hollywood history, he can go fuck himself with a VCR, acting all high-and-mighty. Add ontop of that becoming one of the greatest sell outs... oh fuck off George.

The Living Daylights.While it's nice to see a shakespearian actor's take on Bond, the scryptwriters didn't quite know how to make that shine. The parts where he's forced to emulate Moore's shuaveness fall flat. The badguys (Jeroen Krabbe kissing and hugging people, and Joe Don Baker playing with a remote controll) are abysmal and the arian looking henchman with exploding milkbottles can't save that day. The designated stuntmen with their ultra-flat conceiled parachutes deliver an exciting in-air actionscene though, that easily tops their preformance in previous installments. Miriam D' abo plays perhaps the most anoyingly stupid bondgirl ever.6/10

It has been years since I've seen the Timothy Dalton Bond movies. Basically, I saw then when new in theaters and not since. But I remember really enjoying them at the time and thought Dalton made a great Bond. But, I seemed to have been in the minority.

I found myself sporting an odd Juno Temple fixation after browsing through movie trailers on YouTube and this flick in particular peaked my interest. Lucky for me, Dirty Girl is an Instant View on Netflix so I gave it a go.

The film takes place in 1987. Juno stars as Danielle Edmonston, a promiscuous high school student from small town Oklahoma who possesses a reputation as the school slut. She is partnered up with an overweight gay student named Clark for a class project. Her mother, played by Milla Jovovich, is planning on marrying a devout Mormon (William H. Macy) and the new husband is planning on adopting Danielle once the nuptials are completed. She has no desire to become a good Mormon girl and decides to run off to California to find her real father in an act of rebellion and Clark, in an effort to escape his homophobic and abusive father, decides to join her on her quest.

There's no other way to put it other than I friggin' loved this movie. The reviews, both from professional critics and viewers, weren't very good but I must say that I completely 100% disagree with such negative sentiments in regards to this film. It deserves heaps more credit than it has been given. It's cute, funny, and deals with some pretty serious subject matter that makes for some very emotional scenes. It alternated between making me want to laugh and cry all while making use of an awesome 80's soundtrack that blended with the story perfectly. It also features a great ensemble cast consisting of Juno, Milla, and Macy as well as Jeremy Dozier, Dwight Yoakam, Mary Steenburgen, and Tim McGraw.

I've viewed it 3 times in the past 2 days. Maybe I'm overselling it but I feel like I can't stress enough how much I adored this movie. I'm incredibly glad I stumbled upon Dirty Girl and I strongly recommend it.

I don't usually go to these. I find them mostly boring with the same repetitious plot. But every once in a while I get a Regal Cinema Club free movie. There were only two movies I wanted to see this week, Wolverine and maybe The Conjuring, but as often happens, the pass is not good for the most recently released movie, so I couldn't use it for Wolverine. I'm a fan of the X-men, but the other Wolverine movie was kind of so so. Not a big loss. I'll catch it when the DVD comes out.

I didn't find the religious parts of The Conjuring annoying. It's a horror flick, where nothing is real, anyway. In fact, I thought having to wait for clearance from the Pope to do an exorcism, while the family was obviously in mortal danger was funny. I was startled once, and creeped out a number of times, which doesn't usually happen to me in this kind of film. So for those who are into this sort of thing, I'll say it wasn't too bad.

The movie claims to be a true story, or at least based on a true story and real life characters, who are actually identified with what appears to be real family photos at the end during the credits. I suppose you could look them up in a telephone book or something. I got a chuckle out of that. I suppose some people think it's a documentary. :-D

There have been a few movies where others were Soooo impressed that left me with a huge "wtf" in my head - like The English Patient for example. I think the whole world was impressed with that one when I wanted to stick a fork in my own eye.Maybe my tastes are a bit askew.

The little Mermaid. Terrible. I give it a 5/6, just for the fact that some songs are catchy, and some characters were enjoyable (not including Ariel). Ariel is a pain in the arse, she's a brat if you ask me. Sure aren't teenagers like that at a point, but selling your body and life for a man, risking the entire kingdom for her dream, is sooo.....lame. She get's what she wants in the end. Big whoop.

So I finally went and saw that Pacific Rim thing. I liked it well enough, but I left feeling underwhelmed in some way and I can't quite put my finger on why.

Part of the problem with "Pacific Rim" is that the best part of the movie is not the actual climax, rather it's the fight in Hong Kong City. The movie is kinda down hill from there...

Yeah. I was thinking that myself. The story structure was just plain bad. It leaves you feeling kind of meh. It's like if you're given a meal, and it's good. We'll say excellent for the sake of argument. But you're left staring at your dirty plate for the next half hour.

We rented the new Bruce Willis Die Hard this past week............ OMG so bad. Really terrible. I fell asleep about 20 mins into it because I just didn't give a rats ass if Bruce (and company) got shot in the head. I'm a Bruce Willis fan so that's saying a lot.You can skip this one - seriously.

Perhaps the most underrated of the 007's. The cardboard Lupť character and vengeance against a druglord (rather than Pinky and The Brain taking over the world) are it's only major gripes imho; besides that it's a slick, well-paced, well-bloody actionmovie, with awesome stuntwork and great badguy preformances by Robert Davi and Benico Del Torro.8.5/10

Just saw Elysium with Matt Damon with my dad today. Good, bloody action (although over the top at one particular point). Both villains are very vanilla. One is a caricature of the right-wing stance on immigration, while the other (and his friends) crazy just because whatever. All other characters on Elysium lack any real depth.

[spoil:ln49rht7]We had a good opportunity with the secretary thrown in the same armory with the secondary protagonist (a nurse), but that opportunity dies as the secretary does.[/spoil:ln49rht7] Still, we have a well-stated "good vs evil" thing going on.

Damon is nice as a sarcastic guy trying to build his way up, and he gives a couple generally funny moments in the film. Earth's socioeconomic disparity is well established by the slums. LA looks like the worst aspects of any developing country. The goal, is a solid, understandable one. Max (Damon) is going to die if he doesn't get to Elysium within five days. It lets the audience know what to expect.

Right-wingers will hate this movie (which gives it two extra points in my book). The wealthy are generally portrayed as selfish and indifferent to the plights of the poor (especially immigrants), keeping everything to themselves, and the poor are portrayed as victims and heroes, even some of the seedier elements. I've seen a lot of frothing over this film already, though it's wasn't nearly as much as Avatar.

Tomorrow never dies (1997)If it hadn't been for the weaksause bulletsoup finale, this one could've topped Goldeneye. But as at is I'll have to call it a tie. One of the best-paced bonds in the series. 8/10

Tomorrow never dies (1997)If it hadn't been for the weaksause bulletsoup finale, this one could've topped Goldeneye. But as at is I'll have to call it a tie. One of the best-paced bonds in the series. 8/10

You keep watching James Bond movies like this, and you might end up thinking you have a license to kill. They will have to commit you.

Only five left to go, to complete the 50 years of 007. It's just a fun franchise. Eyecandy, erotica, suspense, action, stunts, but also humor, and even cheeze and camp and some sub-par special effects... intentional or not. It all makes for guaranteed entertainment ranging from so-bad-it's-good, to great.

During an interview with Pierce Brosnan, a dumb lady (parafrasing) opened with: "at my videostore they have a whole seperate James Bond section; isn't that amazing?" Pierce, in response, all but facepalms. [youtube:cnpsw5ue]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwNjjIBG3jY[/youtube:cnpsw5ue]forward to 16:55

If the Star Wars series had produced 20+ movies by now, which basicly would've been doable, it could be mistaken for a section of it's own too I guess. Right next to the Star Trek section.

The latest Bond films with Daniel Craig are more just action films. While they are generally good action films, they don't have the tongue in cheek quality of the older Bond movies, which set them apart from the usual action films. I've read some criticism in this regard. But times change. Maybe that's what movie goers prefer, but obviously some people miss the older films.

The latest Bond films with Daniel Craig are more just action films. While they are generally good action films, they don't have the tongue in cheek quality of the older Bond movies, which set them apart from the usual action films. I've read some criticism in this regard. But times change. Maybe that's what movie goers prefer, but obviously some people miss the older films.

The Craig reboot shaved off the camp and cheeze considerably, but not entirely. It's still there somewhat. A guy dripping blood from his eye... Bond straightening his fistcufs while the traincart behind him gets wildly demolished. Craig's Bond is decidedly more thugish than his more suave predecessors; that's a complaint I've read often, but maybe that's what the current zeitgeist demands...

Bond does have this tendancy to change along with his zeitgeist somewhat. Connery's Bond dumped on the Beatles, smoked, and hit women... forward past Moore's carry-on Disco Bond, and Brosnan's non-smoking 007 gets smacked by women. The rape-kissy scenes where the bondgirl succumbs after James forces himself on them are gone too. They look laughable in retrospect. And come to think of it, it's weird that Craig's Bond is considered Thugish compared to his decreasingly mysogonistic colleagues.

They look laughable in retrospect. And come to think of it, it's weird that Craig's Bond is considered Thugish compared to his decreasingly mysogonistic colleagues.

Yeah, laughable, but loveable, but maybe that's just nostalgia on my part. Craig probably is a bit more thuggish, but I think the word thuggish carries it too far. He still manages to clean up well and looks dashing in the casino segments. I always liked how even in games of chance, his good luck seemed to be "impeccable" as if befitting a gentleman.

Now you've got me thinking about doing a Bond marathon, but I've got a number of other things to watch before I start on the old Bond films. I do have a number of them in my collection, but it's been a long time since I pulled them out.

I was visiting a friend in Seattle a few years ago. I'd lived in a small town that had a drive in, which has since blown down in a windstorm, and a theater, which closed in the summer, because the town wasn't big enough to support both a drive in and a theater (the theater has recently disappeared due to economics, I understand). Both were really sub par.

Anyway, my friend wanted to show me a Cineplex with stadium seating and top quality sound (he used to live in my town so he knew I didn't know much about what was happening in the real world), and he decided we should see Die Another Day, which was just released. He thought it would be the best movie out at that time that could demonstrate the quality of an upscale theater. I actually flinched when an sawmill blade was blown off it's axle and shot right at the camera (this wasn't even in 3D). God, I'm such a hick. :-D

I've never read them but from what I've come to understand, Daniel Craig's 007 is the closest to the man that Ian Fleming originally created in the novels. Fleming described him as sort of a blunt instrument or a tool to be used by the government.

I grew up as a huge James Bond fan and think Craig definitely ranks as at least one of the top 2 to ever play the character. I also think Casino Royale had the best Bond Girl in Vesper Lynd.

Gandhi. Hard to rate it, 9/10 I guess. Of course, even retrospectively Kingsleys portrail is fantastic.I had not seen the movie until now, but what I got out of it had more to do with the Indian culture, and general human nature that also happened to include the story of one mans life. Maybe that is what makes it so good, and what made him a legend in his own time, that to him, it was always about humanity and never really about him.

[Sarcasm]Considering how much fewer gangrapes surely are bound to occur in modern India, just imagine how many gangrapes surely must've occured in Ghandi's days. Hense Ghandi's wellknown stance on gangraping women.[/sarcasm]Sorry, but when someone brings up Ghandi, I think India. When I think India, I think gangraping.

The first Kick Ass was really good. The reviews so far on Rotten Tomatoes seem to indicate that it isn't as fresh as the original. But, still worth seeing.

The first one was positively unique and enjoyable. Young Chloe Moretz was adorable as Hit Girl. I saw her interviewed about playing such a foul mouthed little girl, and she said, "OMG if I talked like that at home, I'd be grounded for a year."

Raine Wilson put out a mirror of Kick Ass simply titled Super. It was OK, but had a darker more pathetic quality. I'm not sure you can do Kick Ass twice. The first one was a startling twist that depended on the current super hero frenzy, but that particular uniqueness is going to be gone in the sequel. I'm still looking forward to it. I keep thinking it's possible to do a sequel that's even better than the original, but Hollywood has an awfully hard time pulling it off.

Ashens and the Quest for the Game Child (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS2Cnx_eL6s)

I wanted to like this movie a lot more than I actually did. I've been watching Stuart Ashen's channel where he reviews crap he brought at Poundland on his sofa. This is his first feature-length film. It has a few too many in jokes and too few actually funny jokes. It's kind of typical of youtubers where they go for too long on something. I wasn't expecting and deep and meaningful character study. Too be fair, the actual premise is solid, I guess. The main concept of the plot, I mean. But it's let down by getting his friends and fellow youtubers in on the act in cameos and whatnot. But that may be how the film got made in the first place. I was disappointed that his friend who plays Chef Excellence didn't spend the entire film in a chef's outfit. That would have been better, I think. But, ultimately it just wasn't as funny as i would have liked. I don't recall groaning or rolling my eyes, but I wasn't laughing much, either. I guess I'll chalk this up as a nice first effort. Try harder next time. Too bad the sophomore effort is usually crap.

I was looking forward to this one, because I saw very high viewer ratings when it was in the theater. It's a good movie, but I don't think as good as the rave reviews. The story is pretty good but not brilliant. It's interesting, but not complex.

This is why I go to the movies. It had my attention right from the start. When the over the top Kick Ass type action isn't going on, there's still always something interesting. As a sequel it especially stands out, and I think it might even be better than the first one. I may have to watch it a couple more times to decide for sure. I laughed an awful lot, sometimes even when the blood was flowing. The main characters are a little bit older, and the story takes that into account. It carries on with the next part of their lives, rather than try to do the same thing all over again pretending Hit Girl is still a little kid. I wondered how they were going to handle that. I hope they do Kick Ass III. I'm a committed fan.

Die Another Day (2002)This trainwreck of a movie tries too hard to become a loveletter to the bondfans. It was too sucessfull at the boxoffice to count as something that nearly killed the franchise, but with the growing competition from Jason Bourne and Mission Impossible it was clearly time for a reboot.

Still this is effective as cheesy etertainment, and only goes to show that even the worst Bond-flick is worth watching.7/10

Casino Royale(2006)Some people don't like how Eon Productions decided to give us, rather than the familliar movie 007, something decidedly closer to Flemming's 007... I'm not one of them. To top Brosnan's final Bond, we would've needed Ewoks. This was the right choice. 9/10

Not sure if this one made it to theaters. It's available now at Red Box on DVD, but not in Blu-ray, which might suggest it's of limited interest. Tommy Lee Jones plays General MacArthur, who is actually a supporting character. The story is limited to a narrow focus of ten days during the first part of the rebuilding of Japan after WWII.

MacArthur assigned to a second in command the task of deciding whether or not Emperor Hirohito should be tried for war crimes. The investigation had to take place in 10 days. It could have been told in a much shorter time, but it was interesting none the less. There are also some flashbacks as the main character, General Fellers, in charge of the investigation, thinks back to his previous love, a Japanese woman prior to WWII. That part could have been left out, I think.

There probably is some history to be learned, but the movie feels like a lot of Hollywood glamor had been added. Still, I think it is worth watching.

Quantum of Solace (2008)What otherwise could've been great actionscenes (the ropedangling duel and the propellorplane chase were potentially memorable), are sadly ruined by shitty editing. Erraticly jumping from one split-seccond-shot to another makes them exhausting to watch and nearly impossible to follow. The plot shouldn't be blamed. Finding out more about the Quantum organization, and answering the questions that gave him torturous mixed feelings about Vesper, both demanded the same actions from Bond. I like how that places 007 in a spot where M starts doubting his loyalty. I think that made for a pretty good plot. Such a shame things got slaughtered during post-production.6/10

Skyfall (2012)Javier Bardem's character is delightfully creepy, and therefore somewhat forgiven for being entirely too omnicient. Moneypenny's back and as flirty as ever. MI6 get's an explosive makeover that was much needed because the 'old' office was starting to look sterile and too sci-fi. Making M the main bondgirl was unconventional, but a good way to pass on the baton to Ralph Fienes. The courtroom scenes suffer from unprofessional un-courtroom-like diatribes. The ending, straight out of Home Alone, ends with an anticlimatic knife in the back but was entertaining enough. The cinematography is luckily back on par. It took three movies worth of tweaking (okay two worth of tweaking, and one awefull sidetrack in the middle), but the franchise has now effectively been reset for perhaps another 50 years of 007

8,5/10

P.S. I hope the next films will further establish Quantum as the much needed replacement for SPECTRE.

Board Walk Empire Season 3 7/10Not as engaging as the first two seasons. A lot of time is spent on family dynamics, rather than on gangster stuff. It's like a whole season devoted to one gangster story with filler added. I still enjoyed it, although I not as much as S1 and S2.

I was hard up for a movie, and didn't think this would be all that good. Surprise. I didn't know what it was, except that it sounded like Secret Service guarding the president. I won't say anymore lest I undermine the viewing experience. I enjoyed going into this one cold. I'm happy I didn't know anything about it beforehand. Got my attention right away, and more so as the film progressed.

Aside from a few eye rolling moments, I thoroughly enjoyed it. They borrowed heavily from the old material, but changed it up enpugh that everything was a surprise.I especially loved the very end. Sometimes movies seem to meander at the end, but this one was perfect. Overall, I enjoyed it much more than the first one.

Aside from a few eye rolling moments, I thoroughly enjoyed it. They borrowed heavily from the old material, but changed it up enpugh that everything was a surprise.I especially loved the very end. Sometimes movies seem to meander at the end, but this one was perfect. Overall, I enjoyed it much more than the first one.

Right now for me, anything with Cumberbatch in it cant get less than an 8/10, he is so good.

Epic : 4/10The 4 is entirely for the animation, which is gorgeous, magical, and thoroughly fabulous. It has a stupidpredictable plot that does not even make a stab at originality or surprise, poor poor choices for voice actors, bad writing, bad dialog, bad music, dumb main and even dumber side characters, etc. Excluding a few really beautifully animated scenes, this movie is one to avoid, unless you are looking for something to help you sleep.Epic....failure.

Epic : 4/10The 4 is entirely for the animation, which is gorgeous, magical, and thoroughly fabulous. It has a stupidpredictable plot that does not even make a stab at originality or surprise, poor poor choices for voice actors, bad writing, bad dialog, bad music, dumb main and even dumber side characters, etc. Excluding a few really beautifully animated scenes, this movie is one to avoid, unless you are looking for something to help you sleep.Epic....failure.

100% agree. I saw it on a plane. I know that all movies have to recycle elements. There is nothing really new under the sun. But, this came off as the most derivative, least original way to recycle old elements I have seen. What is the term for a plot device of an object that the good guy and the bad guy both want? In any case, that has been done many times, of course, But, it was so poorly done here.

OMG! LOL I know movies shown on planes and in the club cars of trains have to be washed, cleaned, and approved for all audiences, and I'm not talking about just shielding our vulnerable children from sex. You can't offend anyone, not even grownups, with anything. Movies are weeded out of consideration, sent through committees of good taste, followed by the censor experts, and finally approved by the chairman of the board who is in deathly fear of being fired if some disgruntled customer writes a complaint.

The result is the that you get to watch the most uninteresting stuff. It's too bad, because it sounds like such a wonderful idea to pass the time being provided with a movie as part of the long flight or ride.

Aside from a few eye rolling moments, I thoroughly enjoyed it. They borrowed heavily from the old material, but changed it up enpugh that everything was a surprise.I especially loved the very end. Sometimes movies seem to meander at the end, but this one was perfect. Overall, I enjoyed it much more than the first one.

Right now for me, anything with Cumberbatch in it cant get less than an 8/10, he is so good.

Right. Watch Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and get a major dose of British superior acting. Cumberbatch more than holds his own against the best, playing a very paranoid agent that has to steal a file from his agency. One of the best bits of acting I've seen, period. Very few lines spoken, but his body language alone just sells everything.

OMG! LOL I know movies shown on planes and in the club cars of trains have to be washed, cleaned, and approved for all audiences, and I'm not talking about just shielding our vulnerable children from sex. You can't offend anyone, not even grownups, with anything. Movies are weeded out of consideration, sent through committees of good taste, followed by the censor experts, and finally approved by the chairman of the board who is in deathly fear of being fired if some disgruntled customer writes a complaint.

The result is the that you get to watch the most uninteresting stuff. It's too bad, because it sounds like such a wonderful idea to pass the time being provided with a movie as part of the long flight or ride.

Actually, I saw "Silver Lining Playbook" on the flight from Kahului to LA and it was both vulgar and provocative. It was censored but you still knew what they were saying.

OMG! LOL I know movies shown on planes and in the club cars of trains have to be washed, cleaned, and approved for all audiences, and I'm not talking about just shielding our vulnerable children from sex. You can't offend anyone, not even grownups, with anything. Movies are weeded out of consideration, sent through committees of good taste, followed by the censor experts, and finally approved by the chairman of the board who is in deathly fear of being fired if some disgruntled customer writes a complaint.

The result is the that you get to watch the most uninteresting stuff. It's too bad, because it sounds like such a wonderful idea to pass the time being provided with a movie as part of the long flight or ride.

Actually, I saw "Silver Lining Playbook" on the flight from Kahului to LA and it was both vulgar and provocative. It was censored but you still knew what they were saying.

I don't remember what company that flight was with though :.

Well, that shoots down my theory pretty well. Silver Lining was a pretty good movie.

World War Z. 7/10Action packed, good special effects. I have read the book, and already knew not to expect it to be very similar. They used a few things from the books all the same, and it was fun to pick those elements out. Other than that, it's just a raw action - entertainment movie, and fulfills that fairly well.

Because this movie hasn't been released in the Netherlands yet, there's nothing I'm supposed to know about this Men-In-Black-ripoff with ghosts. So it should be impossible for me to report on how the cast delivers an excellent preformance, even if everything else about this picture is sub-par.If you're going to find out for yourself whether the tomatometer/score of ten is indeed too harsh, and that itīs entertaining enough to kil ninety minutes with, I aught to have no reason to suggest you wait untill you can rent-buy at a discount.

Last movie I saw was Big Jake, an old western with john Wayne. Wasn't the best movie in the world, but a solid Western movie, far better than most westerns today, taking the whole action/slo-mo approach instead of the down and dirty gun fights of old.

I'd say 6.5/10

(the lower score is due to a few story flaws and the fact that the endings is abrupt)

A great action movie. Is it Star Trek? Well....let's just say it's a great action movie. I think it lacks what made Star Trek great, though. It didn't make me think about morality, ethics, or philosophy much. I suppose if you picked at the movie enough you could find things to discuss of that nature, but they weren't part of the movie. The movie was about action sequences and catching the bad guy. I still enjoyed it a lot because it had a good plot and it had amazing special effects, except for the godddamn lens flare. ENOUGH WITH THE LENS FLARE, ABRAMS!

Kick-ass 2Not as good and stylisticly crisp as the first one, but then again few sequels are, and this was a particularly tough act to follow. It was refreshing to barely recognize Jim Carey, in spite of being well aware. But I can't help but wish Stars and Stripes had been a morally ambivalent go-between, gradually corrupting Kickass to suit the Motherfucker's twisted plans, but I suspect that's an opportunity the makers of the comics missed and can't be blamed on the moviemakers. Kick-ass gets buff, rather than an actual characterarch. And age inevitably hasn't been kind to the Hitgirl concept, because the dramatic gap between age and bloody antics has narrowed. The Motherfucker owns his part, this is mostly his show.

All in all still more entertaining than the Tomatometer gives it credit for. 7/10

When director Courtney Solomon exploded onto the scene in 2000 with his debut Dungeons & Dragons, we were blessed with inept, talent-free film making not seen since Robot Monster. He followed this up with 2005's An American Haunting where a young woman was terrorized by the ghost of Moe Howard. Now after producer credits on a string of mediocre and unknown straight to DVD debacles, he takes the director's chair again with Getaway

The story starts in media res, which is hipster speak for "not fucking explaining anything right off the bat, so be prepared to either be confused or not give a shit." Eventually we learn that Ethan Hawk plays some guy who used to be a professional race car driver but now has come home to find his wife has been kidnapped and a mysterious caller on his phone tells him to obey his instructions or she'll die. He's made to steal a car simply covered with cameras so the mysterious voice can watch his every move and then drive through the downtown marketplace and smash all the christmas decorations. Jesus christ, who's the mysterious voice? The Grinch? Shortly thereafter he's carjacked by a chipmunk. Wait. No. That's Selena Gomez. So now she's stuck with him and all the pieces are in place for a fun romp, right?

Well, no. And fuck you.

If I were to summarize Getaway with just one word it would be "distracting." Not distracting in a good way how other movies distract us from our failed and miserable lives. It is distracting in that poor directing choices keep bringing me out of the experience so that any enjoyment I could have with the movie is undermined by the way it was made.

For example, there's a break in the drivey action so Hawk and Gomez can trade some dialog and deliver a bit of exposition, but the dialog is delivered with constant cutting back and forth the way all the action scenes had constant cuts to try and look more exciting than it really is. it was jarring enough that I not only noticed but was starting to get a little motion sickness from a fucking dialog scene.

The entire time Gomez looks either disinterested or like an angry chipmunk. I don't know why the fuck she's famous, but I found her voice to be squeaky and nasally and overall unpleasant to hear. Hawk told her to shut up early in the movie and my heart sank because no one who's told to shut up in a movie every fucking shuts up. She also has mysterious abilities stolen from an NPC support character in a video game. I wouldn't have been non-plussed if she'd pulled the ark of the covenant right out of her ass, if they had needed it. Throughout the editing kept putting in reaction shots from her as the drivey action was going on. I could tell what they're doing as we get a quick look of her pudgy cheek and her hair whip out of her face. It's trying to be sexy, but fails.

Hawk, meanwhile, looks the part of a guy who had seen better days and now finds himself tits deep in this shit because the career choices that got him in this movie in the first place mirror the life choices his character made perfectly. He looks haggard and disinterested... No, disinterested would require ascribing emotion to his utterly blank performance, like how an electrical outlet looks happy. Yeah. He's just kind of there. Like a blank space on the set that reads "insert charismatic lead here."

The weak link for me Rebecca Budig as Hawk's kidnapped wife. This seems to be a thing with Coutney Solomon movies where the female character are awkward. Awkward in a way I can't quite put my finger upon. Like they used all their worst takes. Budig is especially awkward because there was no reason to put her in this movie at all. If you see this movie, try to imagine how much better it would have been if we never saw her until the end because all of her scene until the end are just padding. But even then she's awkward as fuck like Solomon didn't give her any direction because he's a goddamned nerd and is to too shy to talk to girls. Chipmunks, yes. Girls, no.

What holds it all together is the mystery of who this mysterious voice could be. He has quite a bit of control and is forcing Hawk to intentionally get into chases with the cops and then lose them within a fixed time limit. So who is he and what's his big plan? Well, since we have no backstory to work with, he turns out to be person non-Grata played by Jon Voight in a wasted cameo. His plan is to steal money somehow using computers. So it all kind of fizzles at the end.

Overall it's an unpleasant movie to watch. Solomon hasn't learned a damn thing about how to direct a movie in the last thirteen years. None of the actors seem all that invested, and neither was the audience. One part near the end when Hawk's gotten his wife back but the bad guy had captured Gomez and was driving away, there's a lengthy sequence filmed from the front of Hawk's car as he chases the bad guy down. It goes for at least two minutes, which is forever in movie time especially when it's a car chase down a public street. it doesn't look like any CGI was used. The cordoned off a lengthy stretch of road in a busy European city and set up stunt drivers to do near misses and did this entire thing in all one, unbroken shot. Such misspent effort on something that might have been cool in a better movie. Here, it just come off as weird and pretentious. But the real problem is that this movie isn't all that memorable. Dungeons & Dragons was memorable, at least. Memorably bad, but still memorable. I'm already forgetting Getaway. Possibly to kill every neuron containing the memory of Selena Gomez's voice. Ick.

the dialog is delivered with constant cutting back and forth the way all the action scenes had constant cuts to try and look more exciting than it really is. it was jarring enough that I not only noticed but was starting to get a little motion sickness from a fucking dialog scene.

Having recently watched Quantum of Solace again, I can feel your pain. When no shot stays for longer than a splitsecond, it just becomes exhausting thus anoying.

the dialog is delivered with constant cutting back and forth the way all the action scenes had constant cuts to try and look more exciting than it really is. it was jarring enough that I not only noticed but was starting to get a little motion sickness from a fucking dialog scene.

Having recently watched Quantum of Solace again, I can feel your pain. When no shot stays for longer than a splitsecond, it just becomes exhausting thus anoying.

Shaky cam is like that, too. These kinds of devices can add a sense of intensity to a movie if they're used sparingly, but if they do much more than hint or nudge the film along, they begin to lose their effectiveness and become chaotic. At a certain point, it starts to seem obvious that the director is using gimmicks because he really doesn't have much of a story to tell. In the worst case, it can actually flat out wreck a potentially good movie.

I liked "distracting" as it's been used here. You have to wonder if you are intentionally being "distracted" so you won't realize the movie is that bad, or is it just simply distracting?

Recently released on DVD (I don't think it played in theaters around here), I just rented it from Red Box, and watched it cold. It stars Morgan Freeman, Jessie Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Mťlanie Laurent, Mark Ruffalo, and Michael Caine. Street magicians team up to even an old score with some dazzling tricks and make it to the big time. But their journey to stardom itself is one artfully carried out act of misdirection, as a much bigger agenda actually drives the action. This was great fun, and I don't want to spoil it by telling any more about the movie. Even if it turns out you aren't as impressed as I am, you will have a good time watching this highly enjoyable movie. Well worth renting this one.

I guess sometimes you can go back to a place you were 30 years ago to revive an old experience, but it won't be the same. The movie captured the feel of Donkey Kong or Super Mario with the appropriate background music and non stop action with lots of confusion. It was like watching the Three Stooges in color: Shoot this guy; Now climb up; Jump; Go back; Turn right; Now hit this guy with your hammer; etc.

The thing I remembered and most liked (and still do) are the Goombas, devolved beings with low intelligence that formed an army of soldiers loyal to President Koopa. They would to whatever Koopa wanted, but always with the same stupid grins on their faces. They seemed to be happy all the time, probably due to the fact that they were mentally challenged.

However, Luigi Mario discovers that while they are trying to capture you or shoot you with their deadly ray guns, they could be distracted by waltz music. Give a goomba a slight nudge, and he would begin to sway in time to the music. Pretty soon the whole army would be swaying and dancing instead of fighting, until someone in charge would have to get them back on track. At one point in the movie some battle commander calls President Koopa with a problem, "Commander, the goombas are dancing again," to which Koopa, irritated by the call, yells into the phone, "Just deal with it."

Little kids would probably still like it. Good and evil are well defined, and there's lots of goofy characters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 7Yt4TCtQ18 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=U7Yt4TCtQ18)Well it was okay but kinds a slow and predictable. What was funny is that I have a very political conservative friend that didn't get the matephor messege of the movie. The movie is about illegal aliens, healthcare reform, racism, and a multitude of obvious political issues. One of the main charactors is a substitute for Che Guevera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara). The charactor even looks like him.The movie is about a very polluted earth that is run buy robots and basically enslaves the poor population. Oh they are free so to speak, making slave wages living in poor conditions, but technically free. The rich and near rich live on a manmade satalite called "Elysium." The thing is that the people of Elysium have every freedom and modern convenience to include a medical device that can diagnose and cure any and everything. It looks like an MRI machine. To use such a device you must have a citizen tattoo (burned in), an ID that allows you to live on Elusium. Are you seeing the significance? Well Matt Damon is a worker that is exposed to high radiation at his job and the company gives him pain pills and tells him he will die in 5 days, so he gets rigged up and goes (Illegally) to elysium to save his life. To do so he has to steal the security codes which get stored in his brain. Well I think that is enough info to wet your appetite, so go see it, or download it like we did and see the methephor that is Elysium!

The Cold Light Of Day (2012)descent oldfashioned thriller, with strong supporting roles from Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver. Too bad that the payoff is so weak: a trained secret agent holding an ill-timed monologue, untill shot in the back by the triggerhappy Mossad tailing her.

the dialog is delivered with constant cutting back and forth the way all the action scenes had constant cuts to try and look more exciting than it really is. it was jarring enough that I not only noticed but was starting to get a little motion sickness from a fucking dialog scene.

Having recently watched Quantum of Solace again, I can feel your pain. When no shot stays for longer than a splitsecond, it just becomes exhausting thus anoying.

The weird thing is, I don't think it was a conscious decision. They had two people in a car, so set up two cameras on the actors, one for each, and when the actor had a line, it cut to them. But their lines were so short and came so rapid-fire, it became a distracting overuse of editing. If they'd had a third camera to get both actors in frame at the same time so they could take a break from that, or do a bold thing like not cut to the actor when they're speaking, it wouldn't have been such a problem.

This strikes me as the sort of mistakes a first year film student would make instead of a thirteen year industry veteran. Courtney Solomon started pretty bad in film with Dungeons & Dragons. It's just kind of sad that he hasn't improved in very basic ways over the last decade.

Rate this 9 out of 10, which is big for me. This is one intense movie, done in a dark humor that is really sharp. GREAT ACTING by Matthew McConaughey, Juno Temple, Gina Gershon, Thomas Haden Church. Juno Temple alone is worth watching the movie. She plays this sexy, half there spaced out sister and just smokes on screen. McConaughey is incredible. The dude is a serious actor.

I'm not that interested in race cars, but this movie, a true story they tell me, held my interest. It's focuses on the personal competition between two Formula 1 champions in 1976. I went to a Formula 1 race way back when. The track was so big, most of the time the cars were just barely in sight. Then whoever you were cheering for would zoom by the stands in about a second and a half, and then would be gone again for a few minutes. LOL

But the movie was more interesting than that. During the racing parts you were in the car a good part of the time winding your way through the course at breath taking speeds. The background story was fairly interesting.

Literally, the only thing wrong with this movie was that we lose Clooney so soon in the film. :Hangman:

I was disappointed with that also. I thought the movie was OK. The story presented some neat strategies for getting out of the nightmare predicament that I've never thought about. It kept my interest, but I wasn't enamored with it.

Literally, the only thing wrong with this movie was that we lose Clooney so soon in the film. :Hangman:

I was disappointed with that also. I thought the movie was OK. The story presented some neat strategies for getting out of the nightmare predicament that I've never thought about. It kept my interest, but I wasn't enamored with it.

Clever resolution of the problem 9/10. Kudos to the writers.But as far as engaging me personally 6/10

Personal engagement is a important aspect of a movie. This attribute is hard to defend since I can't say what it was. I was excited about seeing it, but when I left the theater, I didn't feel like I had connected with the film. For a me, a 10 movie has me thinking about it on the way home, and when I get up the next morning.

An interesting and tense recount of the piracy attack on the Maersk Alabama in 2009 off the coast of Somalia, so you know how the thing plays out. Some of the details don't exactly follow my recall of the event, but they come very close. It's not Tom Hanks' usual character, but he plays the role well. Everyone plays a convincing role. I'd say this one is a must see.

My Name Is Bruce.Fun cheesy movie where Bruce Campbell plays... Bruce Campbell. What he believes to be a rollplaying prank from his agent, turns out to be not that at all. Now he has to play the Ash part for real to defeat... wait for it... the chinese patron saint of beancurd.

[spoil:2aydtmqg]Literally, the only thing wrong with this movie was that we lose Clooney so soon in the film. :Hangman:[/spoil:2aydtmqg]

Thanks the fuck a lot for not using the spoil tag asshole.

I very much enjoyed the film. This is one of those movies really designed for 3D. A lot of people don't like 3D, or think it is overused, etc. Now, of course, some people really cannot visually tolerate 3D movies. But, for people that think 3D is overused, but like it occasionally, this, like Avatar, is one of those movies that is designed for 3D and best viewed in 3D.

They did a great job with visual realism. Some scientists point out that it is not scientifically realistic. Things happen in the movie that couldn't really happen. But, it is of course fiction. And for the average person who doesn't know what is or isn't possible, it has a very realistic feel to it.

I've been aware for sometime that the third our fourth remake of Carrie is going to open soon. Great story that it was, I'm probably going to pass this time. The coming attractions appear to be the same script as the original with different actors. I'd can't imagine how you could improve on the original movie and it's cast chemistry. Maybe change the hair styles to make it more up to date, but the original movie set a high standard that I think will remain the defining "Carrie" for a long time.

My god, that was poorly acted and directed. It should get some kind of an award. You might check out the reviews at Redbox.com. As of two days ago, no one, not one single person, gave it more than a half of one star. I should have read the reviews first, but I was hard up for a movie.

Sandra Bullock and some fat chick trying to reprise Bullock success with Ms Congeniality, if there are some re-runs of Mayberry I would suggest that instead. Oh its got its moments, but trying to make the fat chick a "heavy bad-ass" cop fails pretty bad when she can barely pick up a chair let alone muscle some guy out of a car... stick to Mayberry

Sandra Bullock and some fat chick trying to reprise Bullock success with Ms Congeniality, if there are some re-runs of Mayberry I would suggest that instead. Oh its got its moments, but trying to make the fat chick a "heavy bad-ass" cop fails pretty bad when she can barely pick up a chair let alone muscle some guy out of a car... stick to Mayberry

Melissa McCarthy is over the top repulsive for me. I seldom react to looks that way, but I can't bear to look at her, not even with the morbid curiosity one indulges in while gaping at freaks at a side show. But I suppose she deserves a round of applause for turning her handicap into something profitable. Still, I can't help being saddened watching her.

Not a movie, but still pretty good:"The Dresden Files." TV show from Canada I've been watching on Hulu, loosely based on the books by Jim Butcher.Harry Dresden is a the only openly practicing wizard in America. He runs a private investigators business in Chicago. Great books and a pretty good tv show that unfortunately only ran a single season.

Going to see "Ender's Game" tonight. Will update after the movie.

*Edit*8/10 for "Ender's Game." The movie was about 50% true to the letter of the book but about 95% true to it's spirit. And, it was absolutely full of eye candy. My biggest disappointment was that it wasn't in 3D (at least where we're at). 3D would have put this one over the top as it did for "Avatar" and the latest Star Trek movie. Basically, it's a good movie that barely misses great.

I didn't watch it, but a surgeon, a woman no less fixes a satelite moving 17000 mph? Yeah, send a dishwasher to do cardiac surgery naked in Antarctica with zero gravity.... :lol:

In zero gravity (technically in a friction-less enviroment I think), it doesn't matter how fast things move as long as you're moving with them. In general, speed is only a factor if you're moving through a particle field that has a different speed (like on earth with wind resistance; but we don't call it spectacular that people can repair a car indoors while going 1,000 miles per hour, which is the speed earth itself moves at)

There are so many obese people in US and UK. (Both society's populations include close to half obese).... You see her as handicapped many people see her 'normal' like themselves compared to abnormal Hollywood types....

It might also be the roles I've seen her in. Generally I avoid her movies, so I can't say I've seen a lot of her. I googled her yesterday and clicked on images. Actually, in images, rather than in roles, she looks like a right nice person. I recently took a chance and rented Identity theft because it got good reviews, but again, I disliked her in that movie. Looks aside, she played a disgusting person, fucking over people's lives just to swipe their identities and spend their money. I fast forwarded to the end to see how it turned out, and she apparently had a change of heart and morphed into a sweet considerate person. The whole scenario was absurd, but I got the impression that there was supposed to be a moral there (don't judge people by their looks). However, her actions were deplorable. I hated the movie. I don't know why I have such a negative visceral response to her. She's just an actress.

Edit: And no, I don't hate fat people. I understand that it's often not their fault, and I'm actually compassionate about that, but I react negatively to fat people who glorify being fat. It's not healthy, and while it may be uncontrollable, it's not something I think people should aspire to.

Just saw Man of Steel yesterday, on an airplane. It has two main features:

1. Melodramatic speeches2. CGI action

Action sequences are supposed to give you some thrill, excitement. Perhaps I've just seen too many action sequences, or perhaps the effect was muted by being on a little airplane screen, but, I didn't feel very much excitement or thrill with the action. It was just there. The rest of the movie is speeches that just seemed melodramatic to me.

Eh, there were some moments I liked. I thought Zod was a better villain than the Lex Luthor of Superman Returns. Then again, only slightly. He gave too many over the top speeches too.

They certainly had a good cast. Lawrence Fishborn, Kevin Costner, Russel Crowe. Henry Cavill makes a good Superman. Just needed a better script.

Action sequences are supposed to give you some thrill, excitement. Perhaps I've just seen too many action sequences, or perhaps the effect was muted by being on a little airplane screen,

I've wondered often enough if movie goer's infatuation with special effects will eventually wear thin. I like them when used effectively. I actually thought Superman used them quite well, but for the most part, my enjoyment of special effects is more about curiosity of the modern technology that is used to create them. Blowing up a car in a movie is just mundane repetitiousness. How the technicians in Hollywood do it is interesting, however.

I've read several articles in the past few months of how Hollywood is bemoaning the less than anticipated revenues of the last summer and making doom and gloom forecasts about the end of the movie industry. Apparently, special effects aren't cheap. But is it really that bad, or are some rich guys just whining about not making as much money as Wall Street?

Or maybe movie goers are getting bored with special effects and car chases. I know I am enthralled by the rare movie these days that is carried by the strength of a good story, rather than movies based on someone's rigid formula declaring every movie must have 3 car chases, 4 explosions, and 12 guys being taken out by a judo expert.

It seems to me that 90 minutes of repetitious adrenalin stimulating action once a week will eventually wear thin, especially when video games can provide that for hour after hour, 7 days a week. What?? Take a beak from Grand Theft Auto to go see an action movie? But then I'm not the guy doing the polling and figuring out how to keep Hollywood afloat.

This is a good thing. Again because that's our culture in general. There is a certain beauty and hotness we are supposed to accept both in male and female norms.

This may get me some hatred, but I am going to put myself out there...

I don't think it's a good thing for obese people to be considered sexy. I am very much against models being forced to reach unhealthy levels of skinniness to be considered attractive, and I am against being unhealthy overweight being the norm as well. That goes for both sexes; I don't think Fat Bastard from Austin Powers should be considered an ideal body either.

There is nothing wrong with larger or skinnier people being comfortable with their body, but it shouldn't be what they want to be. I was borderline anorexic for years and even 30 pounds heavier I still have issues of thinking I am too skinny (I am the ideal weight for my size).

I just don't think being unhealthy should be publicly acceptable, nor should obesity be idealized in anyway. It's fine to find them beautiful because that goes beyond physical, but don't pretend they have great bodies.

This is a good thing. Again because that's our culture in general. There is a certain beauty and hotness we are supposed to accept both in male and female norms.

This may get me some hatred, but I am going to put myself out there...

I don't think it's a good thing for obese people to be considered sexy. I am very much against models being forced to reach unhealthy levels of skinniness to be considered attractive, and I am against being unhealthy overweight being the norm as well. That goes for both sexes; I don't think Fat Bastard from Austin Powers should be considered an ideal body either.

There is nothing wrong with larger or skinnier people being comfortable with their body, but it shouldn't be what they want to be. I was borderline anorexic for years and even 30 pounds heavier I still have issues of thinking I am too skinny (I am the ideal weight for my size).

I just don't think being unhealthy should be publicly acceptable, nor should obesity be idealized in anyway. It's fine to find them beautiful because that goes beyond physical, but don't pretend they have great bodies.

I also agree. There is a difference between people with a heavy build who are perfectly healthy and people who are obese, but we shouldn't be glorifying unhealthy bodies in any direction. We really should take someone with a healthy and natural figure to be beautiful. And that discards body builders and the like as wel.

I mean, come on. It's got Denzel Washington, he always does great movies. The beginning feels almost like an action movie, but don't be fooled. It's a compelling drama that explores the depths of addiction and human integrity. I really enjoyed it.

I mean, come on. It's got Denzel Washington, he always does great movies. The beginning feels almost like an action movie, but don't be fooled. It's a compelling drama that explores the depths of addiction and human integrity. I really enjoyed it.

I enjoyed it too, but I thought it went really into a weird place. What the guy did to the plane to get get everyone but one alive was insane (granted maybe impossible but thats not the issue). That was tossed aside because another person who equaled his efforts died by trying to help others. I think this movie's message really made me realize how much some people will take a great action and crucify someone because they may be a drunk. So what? Nothing he did, was proven to be the cause of the accident, but he was able to save almost all and because one died he was made the scapegoat. I thought the message was a MAD movie.

Is it at least worth it if you've read the book and want to see some cool special effects to go with it? :lol:

I didn't read the book, but the special effects were good. Quite a bit of floating around in zero gravity, and alien structures I recognized from a video game I've played, but I can't remember which one now.

Is it at least worth it if you've read the book and want to see some cool special effects to go with it? :lol:

Quote from: "SGOS"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "SGOS"

Ender's Game 6/10Not bad. Not great.

Is it at least worth it if you've read the book and want to see some cool special effects to go with it? :lol:

I didn't read the book, but the special effects were good. Quite a bit of floating around in zero gravity, and alien structures I recognized from a video game I've played, but I can't remember which one now.

I've found that people who read the book enjoyed the film more than people who haven't. There's a lot in the book that isn't covered or is covered incompletely in the movie. For the first time ever, Hollywood made a movie too short instead of too long. As I said in my earlier post, it's a good movie that just misses being great.

I'll be seeing it soon. I was surprised by how much I liked the first one, because that particular type of sci fi, (You know: raising Krackens with magic spells, mid evil back drops with aspects of advanced technology, done with the feel of a Biblical spectacular) is almost always a guaranteed snooze for me.

Enders Game - As a book reader, I give it an 8.5 our of 10. My husband has not read the book, and when I asked, he gives it a solid 8, verging on 8.5 out of 10.

Criticisms of OSC aside, they really did justice to the books. The casting and acting is great, by everyone young and old. Asa Butterfield does a perfect combination off brilliance, confidence, and subtle vulnerability.There are some small issues with the thread of the story, but overall it keeps a good pace, stays true to the books, and most importantly stays true to the theme, or moral if you will, of the story. The end twist is devastating whether you know it is coming or not.

The special effects are well integrated, and never felt out of place or in your face to me. I would recommend this movie to everyone. Book reader or not. Sci-fi fan or not. It makes me wonder all over again how on earth this is classified as a young adult story. The themes are far from simple, and very thoughtful even for adults.

I got to see this movie on my birthday, and I have to say, it was the perfect present. My first "date night" with my hubby since our little one came along!

On the one hand, I liked the long introduction and backstory. It gave the movie an epic feel right away, even if it isn't cannon. It had it's moments after that, but I felt it really lost momentum towards the end, and just felt like any other epic fight between 2 super people.

I thought the roles were well cast and well acted, but the writing just lost it's umph, or direction, by the middle of the movie or so.

Not bad, but not the best either. I think Superman is just a pretty hard story to do justice to.

On the one hand, I liked the long introduction and backstory. It gave the movie an epic feel right away, even if it isn't cannon. It had it's moments after that, but I felt it really lost momentum towards the end, and just felt like any other epic fight between 2 super people.

I thought the roles were well cast and well acted, but the writing just lost it's umph, or direction, by the middle of the movie or so.

Not bad, but not the best either. I think Superman is just a pretty hard story to do justice to.

I think DiscoveringReligion had the best take on that movie. If you're familiar with very much of the Superman mythos, this movie should anger you. Seriously, what part of "Superman does not kill" did the film makers not understand? This is not a hard concept to nail down, guys: Superman does not kill. When Superman kills someone, he stops being Superman. That's your finale, not your first fucking movie. #-o

Seriously, Superman killing someone is like the military killing Godzilla (no surprise that Hollywood fucked that up, too). Grass grows, birds fly, Godzilla's invincible, and Superman doesn't kill. These franchises have survived for decades without your shitty new take on them; quit trying to make them darker and edgier for its own sake! :evil:

On the one hand, I liked the long introduction and backstory. It gave the movie an epic feel right away, even if it isn't cannon. It had it's moments after that, but I felt it really lost momentum towards the end, and just felt like any other epic fight between 2 super people.

I thought the roles were well cast and well acted, but the writing just lost it's umph, or direction, by the middle of the movie or so.

Not bad, but not the best either. I think Superman is just a pretty hard story to do justice to.

I think DiscoveringReligion had the best take on that movie. If you're familiar with very much of the Superman mythos, this movie should anger you. Seriously, what part of "Superman does not kill" did the film makers not understand? This is not a hard concept to nail down, guys: Superman does not kill. When Superman kills someone, he stops being Superman. That's your finale, not your first fucking movie. #-o

Seriously, Superman killing someone is like the military killing Godzilla (no surprise that Hollywood fucked that up, too). Grass grows, birds fly, Godzilla's invincible, and Superman doesn't kill. These franchises have survived for decades without your shitty new take on them; quit trying to make them darker and edgier for its own sake! :evil:

Didn't he killed Zod and friends? They even made it happen in Superman 2. Doomsday? Joker?

Basically, he argues that Superman should not be taking part in destroying buildings, killing people in the process. He compared it Christopher Reeve's movie, where, Zod noticed that Superman spent all his time trying to save innocent lives whenever Zod did anything. So, Zod used that as a vulnerability. In MoS, Superman doesn't bother rescuing people from the falling buildings, he helps knock them down.

I also watched DiscoveringReligion's take on MoS. It is long, but, interesting:

A couple years ago, I found a 2 disk double sided set of the 4 Chris Reeves Superman Movies, for $5 in the bargain bin at Walmart. I thought it was quite a find, because I really liked those films, but re-watching them was a disappointment. There are some clever moments, but I didn't connect with them as well as I remembered. I just found them mostly uninteresting.

I feel like I am watching an argument from an episode of "Big Bang", I was never aware of any "non-kill" rule whether spoken or not, but then again I guess I was never wrapped up that tight....... :twisted:

I feel like I am watching an argument from an episode of "Big Bang", I was never aware of any "non-kill" rule whether spoken or not, but then again I guess I was never wrapped up that tight....... :twisted:

I remember the old TV series. I was at the perfect age to love Superman. Now that I'm thinking about it, I can't remember him actually killing anyone. He didn't save the world from aliens with superpowers matching his own. It seems like it was always some second rate bank robbers or the like. You know, petty thieves who weren't really ready for the big time.

He would crash through the walls of the vault as they were stuffing their sacks with money, and stand there for a minute with his chest puffed out in he man fashion, while bullets just bounced off him. Then he would grab them by the collars and turn them over to the cops who would thank him for his service, and then he'd just fly off, change clothes, and tie up the episode by having a discussion with Lois and Jimmy: "Gee Clark, you missed all the action at the bank. Superman nabbed the robbers. Where were you, anyway?"

Clearly, there should be another rule about Superman. He never has to fight anyone with powers equal to his own. Well, at least it bothers me when that happens in the modern Hollywood versions. I just want to see him apprehend robbers and purse snatchers. I don't really care if he kills them or not. If he does, that's fine. I really don't care, but I don't want him to be vulnerable. It's just not Superman-ish like it should be. :-D

The Last Samurai: Really enjoyed this movie, my biggest complaint was that in 30 minutes Tom Cruise went from completely oblivious to their culture to a mas. r Samurai. But still really good, very critical of the Westerner culture over powering of native cultures and the risk of capitalism over ones nation and people. 8.0

Letters from iwo jima: made me re-respect Clint Eastwood. Really humanized the "enemy" and showed that both sides were human and not so different after all. 9.5

The Last Samurai: Really enjoyed this movie, my biggest complaint was that in 30 minutes Tom Cruise went from completely oblivious to their culture to a mas. r Samurai. But still really good, very critical of the Westerner culture over powering of native cultures and the risk of capitalism over ones nation and people. 8.0

Letters from iwo jima: made me re-respect Clint Eastwood. Really humanized the "enemy" and showed that both sides were human and not so different after all. 9.5

Fun lil movie. Naturally over the top but if you like mindless shoot-em-ups and bad mexicano's and bad cia and bad military and ....hell everybody bad but the two good guys..then its a fun snacky movie.

Remake? Sequel? Not sure since the only carryover character was Dredd.

Judge Dredd, played by Karl Urban (Dr. "Bones" McCoy from the "Star Trek" re-boot) takes a borderline rookie on an evaluation assignment. Lots of shootin', 'splosions and mayhem ensue, but not much substance. Still better than the absolutely horrific "Judge Dredd" that Stallone did back in the late eighties/early nineties. How could it not be?

Karl Urban was stuck with the line "I am the law." but used it to much better effect that Stallone did.

This doesn't really technically count as a movie. The 50th anniversary Dr. Who special was played in 3D in a number of theaters yesterday. It was a one-time event. I'm surprised how well attended it was. I just barely heard of it in time to go. And yet the showing was sold out. In fact, the manager said he added a second screen and it was sold out too.

Some purists don't like the messing with canon, doing retcons. Well, doesn't bother me too much. It was a fun episode. I enjoyed it a lot.

It had a cameo by Tom Baker. There were some shots of all the doctors. There were 3 doctors with significant parts, David Tennant, Matt Smith, and John Hurt. Hurt played a previously unknown Doctor, also called the War Doctor, who killed all the Time Lords and Daleks in the Time War.

Some fans suggested they should have used Paul McGann as the War Doctor. McGann only played the Doctor in that one Fox special. But, his Doctor is considered canon and was shown in this episode when all the doctors were shown.

Although it appeared on TV, some bits were filmed specifically for the theater showing. You know in movies where they will often have something to tell you to silence your phones and the like. Well, they had a bit with a Centaran who said that use of communications devices would be considered an act of war. There was also a theater-only intro by Smith and Tennant in character. And and the end there was a behind the scenes featurette.

It was in 3D. Surprised they did a 3D conversion for a one-night showing. The 3D wasn't bad for a conversion of a TV show.

People cheered when various characters from the past came on. Tom Baker got a big cheer. It was a lot of fun.

If you want to see how Navy Special Operations works and the men who do it watch Act of Valor. Solitary

I saw that with my ex-girlfriend last year. We only went because we knew the theater would be empty and wanted to *cough* be alone, but she wound up sobbing through the whole thing. I was sad too, but for entirely different reasons.

I had been looking forward to this movie for a long time, and it didn't disappoint. I give it a 9.5/10 only because there were a few things I think they could have added from the books to clarify a few points in the movie. Otherwise, I thought it was great. It didn't slow down at any point, we explored Katniss' relationships more deeply, we saw more juxtaposition between the angry, downtrodden districts and the wealthy Capital, and the action was great. And I cried during this one, too.

A showing of Catching Fire has been starting every half hour beginning at noon and ending at 10:30PM every day this week at my local theater. I've never seen that theater show a movie that many times in a day. I'm going tomorrow.

red 2. meh. Not as fun as the first one. Way over the top a believability (but so what) maybe because the characters have been established you follow the roles better but wait for it on redbox where its only a couple bucks. 5

Just saw "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire." I really wish Joe Average (or maybe the average movie producer) was a little smarter so Hollywood wouldn't have to beat us over the head with the title. Yes, we've read (or at least heard of) the books. Yes, we know they're a series. No, you don't have to add the title of the first movie to all the others.

I'll have to give this one a 9/10. While I thought "The Hunger Games" (8/10) was a good movie and a great adaptation, this one was better. Not only a better movie but a near perfect adaptation that made the movie as enjoyable as the book (pretty rare feat in itself). If they continue this trend, Hollywood may achieve something they only very rarely manage. A movie that's better than the book it's based on. The upcoming "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1" (2014) and "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2" (2015) could easily be the best of the films, based on the weakest of the books. Thanks again to Warner Brothers decision to split the final Harry Potter movie into two parts (absolutely necessary for the sake of the story which they screwed up in the second part anyway) and the corporate greed that keeps making them split stories that don't need to be split just for the box office take.

If you haven't seen "The Hunger Games" yet, rent it, buy it, view it on Netflix but see it and then go see this one. It's a rare treat.

Beware the cliffhanger ending though, if those bother you. Having read the books, I knew it was coming so wasn't much bothered by it. My daughter was ready to kill over it though. :twisted:

A couple of noteworthy trailers were on with the film, one good, one bad. The bad one: They're re-making RoboCop. While this one looks like it may be an improvement over the original (most likely the writers will run with the trope and just recycle the script), Hollywood, please quit re-treading 80's/90's action films. While you strike on an occasional gem, most are steaming pile that get tossed on the compost heap.The good one: "Divergent" based on the book by Veronica Roth is due out in March and while they've cast Shailene Woodley (Amy Juergens: "The Secret Life of the American Teenager") as Beatrice 'Tris' Prior, it looks like it will be very faithful to the book. If so, it will be a good to great movie. If it is as faithful to the book as the trailer suggests, there will likely be three more. "Divergent: Insurgent," "Divergent: Allegiant - Part 1" and "Divergent: Allegiant - Part 2," again splitting a story that doesn't need to be split. :roll:

Random movie thought:Why is "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" getting a sequel and "I Am Number Four" is not? They had similar ratings at both IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes and had similar budgets yet Mortal Instruments failed (at least so far) to turn a profit (Budget: est. $60,000,000 - Gross: $31,165,421) and Number Four has (Budget: est. $50,000,000 - Gross: $55,092,830). Granted, "I Am Number Four" wasn't the best sci-fi film ever (I'd give a 6/10), but it's based on a pretty good series of books and with a different director the follow up movies could be quite good.

WTF! Catching Fire is better than Hunger Games as a movie and as a book! Ahhh, I can't believe you liked the first more.

I liked the concept of children forced to fight other tributes, because the concept is unique and chilling. In the sequel, the State sticks it's nose in the fight so much that it becomes the primary adversary. That didn't shock me as much. It's more like the world we live in.

However, the transition toward focusing on the State as the primary adversary is necessary to the storyline. Otherwise the sequel wouldn't introduce anything new to further the story. I haven't read the books, but the story as it has unfolded so far, has wonderful potential for the overall plot.

I was worried that this might turn out like the Twilight Series, where the first movie was interesting, but the overall story turned into a smaltzy soap opera. Hunger Games doesn't appear to be going in that direction. There's a lot left to tell that can build to a climax with increased tension, rather than fade into a drawn out drama focusing on the teen angst of some ditzy high school girl.

Well I watched 'The Big Divorce'. It was little more than a UCLA film student project(undergrad). The plot was simple, the humor was unsophisticated, the tempo lagged most of the film, and the ending was predictable.The cast was filled with the children of proven stars which is why I came to the conclussion that it was a student project. There were some second teir stars but no headliners, not that that actually matters.The story is simply this:Boy works for jew and falls for his granddaughter.Becomes jewish so that they can marry.Engages in family resturant business and tries to take it to franchise.Meets investor that happens to be his highschool dream girl.Chetas with dream girl and decides to get a divorce.As a condition of the prenuptual agreement he has to reenact the wedding.During reeanctment he decides to stay with wife...ala happy ending (not in the message parlor sense).Cliche` humor about the briss and a few jewish colocials was the extent of the humor.Obviously it was suppose to be a typical romance comedy, but it never got off the ground. The acting was better than fair but not outstanding. Elliot Gould had a big part but it was so underdeveloped scriptwise that it couldn't actually help the story.I give it half a star and a 3/4 thumbs down. You would have felt that you wasted your time and would have been pissed if you had actually paid a dime on it.In the word of my friend and neighbor's wife...."STUUUUUPID"!

It was good. It is the quintessential Godzilla movie that has been re-imagined for a modern audience. Monsters, robots, amazing special effects and cinematograpy....it's a great action movie. Not much for a plot, but come on. Monsters and robots. I wasn't expecting much. I was satisfied with it. And Charlie Day is hilarious. :)

Not much for a plot, but come on. Monsters and robots. I wasn't expecting much. I was satisfied with it.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Not much plot, but plenty of rockem sockem. Give em the ole one/two. Blamo! - Right in the head; Crunch! - Oooh, a judo chop to the Kidney. That's what we do to aliens. Take that! :-D

A movie with none of the traditional redeeming values we expect in an intellectual film that uplifts our souls, teaches us values, or examines the depth of the human condition. The love plot was smaltzy, the characters unreal, and it required an extraordinary suspension of belief that would test the limits of devoted fans of occult films.

As I recall, when it played in the theaters, it received marginal interest. But I found myself very pleasantly engaged. It's almost embarrassing to say that I liked this movie a lot.

A memorable moment was a scene where one of the demon hunters was giving a tour of the secret lair to a new recruit who had been shocked out of his reality and suddenly made aware of the underworld of demonic forces that inhabit the fringes of our dimension:

"We have a working agreement with the werewolves. We stay away from the Vampires. But we kill warlocks, witches, and demons."

"How about the zombies? Do you kill zombies? Oh wait! They're already dead."

"No, we don't kill zombies, you idiot. Zombies aren't real."

Oh well, sometimes you're in the mood for a movie that isn't up for an Academy Award.

It was good. It is the quintessential Godzilla movie that has been re-imagined for a modern audience. Monsters, robots, amazing special effects and cinematograpy....it's a great action movie. Not much for a plot, but come on. Monsters and robots. I wasn't expecting much. I was satisfied with it. And Charlie Day is hilarious. :)

I kind of wish the monsters weren't so goddamned similar. Yeah, they had different features and shit, and they explain why they were so similar, but I couldn't tell one from another if you paid me money.

It also felt less like a movie and more like a television series truncated into a two-hour movie. The Christopher Nolan batman movies have this same problem and they feel unsatisfying as a result.

Slow moving, but punctuated every 45 minutes or so with some interesting violence. The plot is simple, but effective. If the movie were not so slow moving, I would have rated it higher. The acting was good, but much of the dialog was in hushed tones, which made it kind of hard to hear. It might not bother others, but I guess I've spent too much of my life shooting rifles and running chain saws without enough ear protection.

Batman Vs Supermanhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1)Man of Steel II is scheduled for release in 2015. With Ben Affleck as Batman. I don't know what to think. Did Batman ever come into conflict with Superman in the comic books? Batman Vs Superman may be more of a headline than a movie title.

I couldn't find anything about the plot. It's in preproduction right now. I'm not sure if preproduction can mean "just a thought in someone's head", or they have a script and the crew is ready to turn on the lights and start the cameras.

Batman Vs Supermanhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1)Man of Steel II is scheduled for release in 2015. With Ben Affleck as Batman. I don't know what to think. Did Batman ever come into conflict with Superman in the comic books? Batman Vs Superman may be more of a headline than a movie title.

I couldn't find anything about the plot. It's in preproduction right now. I'm not sure if preproduction can mean "just a thought in someone's head", or they have a script and the crew is ready to turn on the lights and start the cameras.

Batman Vs Supermanhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1)Man of Steel II is scheduled for release in 2015. With Ben Affleck as Batman. I don't know what to think. Did Batman ever come into conflict with Superman in the comic books? Batman Vs Superman may be more of a headline than a movie title.

I couldn't find anything about the plot. It's in preproduction right now. I'm not sure if preproduction can mean "just a thought in someone's head", or they have a script and the crew is ready to turn on the lights and start the cameras.

Batman Vs Supermanhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1)Man of Steel II is scheduled for release in 2015. With Ben Affleck as Batman. I don't know what to think. Did Batman ever come into conflict with Superman in the comic books? Batman Vs Superman may be more of a headline than a movie title.

I couldn't find anything about the plot. It's in preproduction right now. I'm not sure if preproduction can mean "just a thought in someone's head", or they have a script and the crew is ready to turn on the lights and start the cameras.

Larry David's HBO movie 'Clear History'.Funny in a very 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' kind of way.Typical Larry David. A man so full of himself that he can't get out of the way of himself. A loser that would finally win if he wasn't so preoccupied with minor shit.I give it 8 of of 10, but worth the time.

Blue Is the Warmest Color: Yes, There's Sex. There's Also Passion -- and its AbsenceOne of the tragedies of the Internet age is that sometimes movies get attention for all the wrong reasons. When it debuted Blue Is the Warmest Color in in May, the festival jury was so taken with the film and its two lead performances that it split the award between the director and his actresses, who play lovers. Many critics at Cannes loved the picture, and seemingly not just for its sex scenes, which, incidentally, are among the most naturalistic and carnal I've ever seen.

Batman Vs Supermanhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1)Man of Steel II is scheduled for release in 2015. With Ben Affleck as Batman. I don't know what to think. Did Batman ever come into conflict with Superman in the comic books? Batman Vs Superman may be more of a headline than a movie title.

I couldn't find anything about the plot. It's in preproduction right now. I'm not sure if preproduction can mean "just a thought in someone's head", or they have a script and the crew is ready to turn on the lights and start the cameras.

Very good story, just ended abruptly. When I saw it in the cinema, I didn't know there was gonna be a third movie. I'm eagerly anticipating the conclusion.

Well, you've got two films to go then. Corporate Greed is doing to every series of movies, simply for the cash grab, what had to be done with the final Harry Potter to preserve the integrity of the story. Then they managed to screw it up anyway.

Convoluted dark comedy that is a movie within a movie, parts funny and grisly, interesting to watch. Drags a little bit in spots, but the plot shifts keep you guessing and keep it interesting. Recommended.

Capt Phillips.Well it was okay but not historically correct. I don't see how they could make a movie with such a small event. Yes it was an important event but not really much happened.I give it a 5 out of 10.

The audience moaned at the end, because like Catching Fire, this mostly boring movie turns out to be a cheap ass setup for Part III. It's a Hollywood ploy to sell more movie tickets, not a commitment to entertainment.

The Hobbit is truly a truly delightful book, but human actors in movies don't even look like little hobbits, and worst of all, Part II of the movie is just a bunch of creatures of the Vale running around doing stuff that was already done in Part I. OK, they added 15 minutes of dragon fighting at the end so that Bilbo could close the with an apologetic line disguised as an ominous foreshadowing. It's really just an attempt by Hollywood to promise that Part III will be the better film.

I'm not one of those who continually praise books as being better than the movies. Movies can add a visual component to a story, which often makes them better. However, this does not hold true with the Hobbit.

So, another not movie. Just finished up with the second, cut short season of "Jericho." Engaging enough to keep me watching and the writing was actually pretty good. Maybe 6/10 overall. I would still highly recommend anyone who thinks that a Corporate States of America is impossible should watch this series. With the power given to corporations over the last 30 years and their financial ability, "Jericho" lays out a very plausible scenario.

I saw Pacific Rim on a plane yesterday. Eh, just too many cliches to me. You've got the hot-shot insubordinate pilot. check. you got the commanding officer who has to bust down the hot-shot insubordinate pilot. Check. You got the guy that hates the hotshot and it comes to fisticuffs. check. Hot-shot saves the world and the former foe shake hands and kiss and make up. check. You've got the reluctant partners. check. Who of course have issues. Check. But, they come together and save the world anyway. check.

Not quite sure how many more cliches they could fit in just one movie.

I saw Pacific Rim on a plane yesterday. Eh, just too many cliches to me. You've got the hot-shot insubordinate pilot. check. you got the commanding officer who has to bust down the hot-shot insubordinate pilot. Check. You got the guy that hates the hotshot and it comes to fisticuffs. check. Hot-shot saves the world and the former foe shake hands and kiss and make up. check. You've got the reluctant partners. check. Who of course have issues. Check. But, they come together and save the world anyway. check.

Not quite sure how many more cliches they could fit in just one movie.

Still a better love story than Twilight.

If you're watching a kaiju film for its story, you're gonna have a bad time.

Kickass 2. Didn't really like it. Meandering as hell. And Red Mist was such a disappointing villain. 6/10

Kickass 1 is about some schmuck trying to become a hero, and this wannabe hero is thrust into this larger story with Big Daddy and Hit Girl, things go awry, but they're ultimately successful - he's finally the hero he always wanted to be. Kickass 2 is about 103 minutes long.

[spoil:13r783q6]I can't tell if this is Kickass's story, or Hit Girl's story or what. But today I learned that cops are apparently useless. You can kill like 10 cops in some cul-del-sac with like half the neighborhood watching and no one will knock on your door the next day. Or get in a shootout on the interstate and highway patrol won't get involved. And apparently, you can do an all-applicants-accepted goon recruitment drive and no one will rat you out to the cops or anything. Oh, and you can assault people at school and not get expelled. And lawnmowers are excellent weapons.

I'm also somewhat disappointed that Justice Forever didn't have something like a 90% casualty rate. Because it really, really should have. Especially the unarmored/unskilled capes.

And Red Mist. Yeah, not going to say his other name. Dunno what the hell happened to this guy, but basically he went from an awesome Judas in the first movie to just a spoiled rich kid/failtard in the second. He was really hard to take seriously this time around, which is really a shame considering his awesome Joker line at the end of Kickass 1.

The mean popular girls subplot clichestorm was almost unbearable. Are there seriously people like that? :-k And apparently, the One Direction lookalikes (and shirtless Kickass) have Hit Girl all hot and bothered. Makes sense to me.

Though, I did really like one scene. Dave bumps into some guy in the hallway and says offhandedly, "Watch it!" and this comically intense goth guy turns around and says, "Watch me end your life." And just glares at him but otherwise doesn't do anything. Fucking priceless.[/spoil:13r783q6]

If you're watching a kaiju film for its story, you're gonna have a bad time.

Pacific Rim is not a kaiju film. It is a major motion picture that is inspired by kaiju films. Much like how Star Wars and Indiana Jones were inspired by the old movie serials or Godfather was inspired by the old gangster movies or how anything by Quintin Tarantino is inspired by the old grindhouse movies of the 60's and 70's. The nature of these films is to take the conventions of the old films they are inspired by and then elevate them with superior craftsmanship. This is the only way they can rise above and properly honor their source material. Otherwise, they have no reason to be made.

Is the worst-looking movie poster I have ever seen in my entire life. Anyone who thinks this looks cool should be sectioned under the mental health act.

I've seen worse (http://http://blogs.presstelegram.com/modernmyth/files/import/57220-20111213_poster_xmen_first_class.jpg). Pretty bland, though. All you can really tell from that one is that this action flick features a badass in body armor in a sci-fi setting. And the lens flare is annoying.

If you're watching a kaiju film for its story, you're gonna have a bad time.

Pacific Rim is not a kaiju film. It is a major motion picture that is inspired by kaiju films. Much like how Star Wars and Indiana Jones were inspired by the old movie serials or Godfather was inspired by the old gangster movies or how anything by Quintin Tarantino is inspired by the old grindhouse movies of the 60's and 70's. The nature of these films is to take the conventions of the old films they are inspired by and then elevate them with superior craftsmanship. This is the only way they can rise above and properly honor their source material. Otherwise, they have no reason to be made.

There is always a reason for kaiju films to be made. That reason is watching giant monsters and robots beat the shit out of each other. Which Pacific Rim delivers, I would note.

On Dec 25th, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty shows in theaters. I'm not a big fan of Ben Stiller, although he's OK. I'm looking forward to this one. The short story is hilarious, as most all of James Thurber's humor is. I've laughed so hard reading Thurber that I lose my breath. Although that was many years ago.

The coming attractions seem to loosely reflect the intent of the story, but I don't recall the situations. It's like Hollywood is rewriting their own and making it into more of a Romantic Comedy. I hope they don't botch it up. Some things can't be improved upon, and few writers, probably no Hollywood writer that I know of, can match James Thurber's skill at humor. We shall see.

Not sure how many stars. But, I enjoyed it. In fact, while most people find the Hobbit films inferior to TLotR movies, at least for me, I prefer them. I read the Hobbit, although over 30 years ago. I never read TLofR. I had trouble keeping up with the sub-plots, who was where doing what in TLotR. Maybe I'm just stupid. Or maybe I didn't have the background knowledge. But I found TLotR hard to follow. The Hobbit's simpler story is more to my liking.

I originally planned on seeing part 1 in HFR, but, the theater was sold out when I went, so I only saw it in regular 3D. I did see this one in HFR. Some people complained that HFR was too clear, that it allowed you to see imperfections that you wouldn't see at regular frame rate. For me, honestly, I am not entirely sure I would have noticed anything if I wasn't told it was HFR. I can say it did look very sharp. Some scenes were breathtaking.

The CGI was generally very good. The spiders scenes and the dragon scenes were great. Yeah, you can still tell it is CGI. This was particularly true when buildings or walls collapse, which happen repeatedly. For some reason, those always have a CGI look to them to me. I guess we still need to wait a few more years before CGI will be completely indistinguishable from live action. But, all in all, pretty damn good.

Some still question why, after making three long books into three long movies, we now have one short book turned into three long movies, albeit with material added from other sources. Eh, its fine by me. The movie did seem overly long at almost 3 hours. It didn't necessarily need to be that long. But I wasn't bored either. So, I'm fine with it.

'Out Of The Furness'Thin plot.Space script with little to no dialogue.A bunch of heavyweights vying for an Oscar nomination:Forest WhitikerChristian BaleWoody HarlesonWilliam DeFoeThey really got into character but that isn't saying much because the characters where all about their backstory which was not illustrated in the film. You had to assume a great deal and then keep catching up and try to find a plot.This story is about a steel factory worker (Christian Bale) in a small depressing town in Northern Penn. near the Jersey border. He has a younger brother that is in the Army that has made a total of 4 tours of combat in Iraq and has a serious case of PTSD and combat fatigue.Bale has a car wreck and kills the family in the other car and is sent up for (you have to guess here) drunk driving manslaughter. When he gets out his younger brother is out of the Army and doesn't have a job and secretly bare knuckle fights for money. DeFoe (a bar owner) is the kid's manager and sets up the fights. They set up one fight in Jersey run by a drug kingpin (Woody Harelson). The kid is suppose to take a dive and he reluctantly does, but it seems that DeFoe owes Harelson a lot of money and Woody kills Defoe and the kid.Bale is told by the Penn. police chief (Forest Whitiker) what has happened. While Bale is in prison Whitiker steals his girl friend. Bale goes looking for Harleson. He eventually lures Harelson to Penn. and kills him. Whitiker lets Bale off for doing the citizen's a favor for killing Harelson and because he feels guilty for stealing Bales girl friend.Thats basically it but it takes 2 hours of long looks grunts moans and serious Marlon Brando type bruding to accomplish that shallow plot.I give it a one and would never spend any money on this flick if I could help it.I hope to see 'The Butler' next.

'Out Of The Furness'Thin plot.Space script with little to no dialogue.A bunch of heavyweights vying for an Oscar nomination:Forest WhitikerChristian BaleWoody HarlesonWilliam DeFoeThey really got into character but that isn't saying much because the characters where all about their backstory which was not illustrated in the film. You had to assume a great deal and then keep catching up and try to find a plot.This story is about a steel factory worker (Christian Bale) in a small depressing town in Northern Penn. near the Jersey border. He has a younger brother that is in the Army that has made a total of 4 tours of combat in Iraq and has a serious case of PTSD and combat fatigue.Bale has a car wreck and kills the family in the other car and is sent up for (you have to guess here) drunk driving manslaughter. When he gets out his younger brother is out of the Army and doesn't have a job and secretly bare knuckle fights for money. DeFoe (a bar owner) is the kid's manager and sets up the fights. They set up one fight in Jersey run by a drug kingpin (Woody Harelson). The kid is suppose to take a dive and he reluctantly does, but it seems that DeFoe owes Harelson a lot of money and Woody kills Defoe and the kid.Bale is told by the Penn. police chief (Forest Whitiker) what has happened. While Bale is in prison Whitiker steals his girl friend. Bale goes looking for Harleson. He eventually lures Harelson to Penn. and kills him. Whitiker lets Bale off for doing the citizen's a favor for killing Harelson and because he feels guilty for stealing Bales girl friend.Thats basically it but it takes 2 hours of long looks grunts moans and serious Marlon Brando type bruding to accomplish that shallow plot.I give it a one and would never spend any money on this flick if I could help it.I hope to see 'The Butler' next.

'Out Of The Furness'Thin plot.Space script with little to no dialogue.A bunch of heavyweights vying for an Oscar nomination:Forest WhitikerChristian BaleWoody HarlesonWilliam DeFoeThey really got into character but that isn't saying much because the characters where all about their backstory which was not illustrated in the film. You had to assume a great deal and then keep catching up and try to find a plot.This story is about a steel factory worker (Christian Bale) in a small depressing town in Northern Penn. near the Jersey border. He has a younger brother that is in the Army that has made a total of 4 tours of combat in Iraq and has a serious case of PTSD and combat fatigue.Bale has a car wreck and kills the family in the other car and is sent up for (you have to guess here) drunk driving manslaughter. When he gets out his younger brother is out of the Army and doesn't have a job and secretly bare knuckle fights for money. DeFoe (a bar owner) is the kid's manager and sets up the fights. They set up one fight in Jersey run by a drug kingpin (Woody Harelson). The kid is suppose to take a dive and he reluctantly does, but it seems that DeFoe owes Harelson a lot of money and Woody kills Defoe and the kid.Bale is told by the Penn. police chief (Forest Whitiker) what has happened. While Bale is in prison Whitiker steals his girl friend. Bale goes looking for Harleson. He eventually lures Harelson to Penn. and kills him. Whitiker lets Bale off for doing the citizen's a favor for killing Harelson and because he feels guilty for stealing Bales girl friend.Thats basically it but it takes 2 hours of long looks grunts moans and serious Marlon Brando type bruding to accomplish that shallow plot.I give it a one and would never spend any money on this flick if I could help it.I hope to see 'The Butler' next.

Ah...good, won't spend the money on that.

And I definately won't view the Wolverine. I have already turned to offers to go see it. One was a free offer because my buddy wanted me to go so bad he offered to pay. I told him I don't bother with the comics anymore.

Also, "The Wolverine" wasn't bad. It was alright. Way better than the shitty first one.

Yeah, I really liked it, I will give it a 9.3/10 for entertainment. There were moments that made me smile and moments I was like, "Holy shit, that's bad ass!", and that is something I very rarely get from movies. Really, really enjoyed it.

I must say, these movies have gathered a strong reputation for a reason. The epic feel, realpolitik, moving soundtrack, strong symbolism and unexpected turns make this well worth watching and eventually owning on DVD. Just make sure to see the first one first so you'll understand whats going on.

I watched "The Wolverine" last night,,,not proud of it, but I admit it. If you watch it, you will not be proud to admit it either.

Im not into comic books, but there are quite a few good action movies based on them. Having said that, The Wolverine isn't really one of them. It's just too drawn out and takes too long to get anywhere. I did like the twist ending though.

I watched "The Wolverine" last night,,,not proud of it, but I admit it. If you watch it, you will not be proud to admit it either.

Im not into comic books, but there are quite a few good action movies based on them. Having said that, The Wolverine isn't really one of them. It's just too drawn out and takes too long to get anywhere. I did like the twist ending though.

I saw the last Wolverine when it was in theaters. I'm an XMen fan, but the thing is starting to go downhill. Hollywood is just milking it for the last bit of profit, and starting to cause a bad taste in my mouth for the whole franchise. Apparently, Wolverine was the central character of the comic series, but I think there's too much effort focusing on his past when other interesting figures could be introduced or at least highlighted.

This is odd for me, because I usually enjoy the part of superhero movies that explain the hero's origin. But enough is enough.

Apparently, Wolverine was the central character of the comic series, but I think there's too much effort focusing on his past when other interesting figures could be introduced or at least highlighted.

This is odd for me, because I usually enjoy the part of superhero movies that explain the hero's origin. But enough is enough.

I dislike Wolverine on principle simply because he tends to steal the show in whatever he's in. I imagine the other characters saying to him, "Yeah, Logan. We know all about your torturous backstory. You've told us like a dozen times. Yeah, yeah, you're a baddass. Storm just sank a naval fleet, Cyclops just turned around and decapitated three 50-foot robots in one smooth motion with his eye beams, and Jean just mind-violated Magneto, but yeah, it was really nice how you punched out like 3 guards and beat up that guy with the really sharp fingernails. Real impressive."

And can you imagine what his teammates would be like drunk? I guarantee you, he'd be the butt of just about every joke. *Morph shapeshifts into Wolverine* "I'm Logan, bub. I'm the gruff, mytserious type, bub. I have a dark and troubled past, bub. I don't play by society's rules. I haven't showered in weeks. Women inexplicably love me, though. Wanna go out? Btw, I'm 150 years old and you're 17. And I'll never truly love you because I still have feelings for my old flame. And my other old flame. And my other..."

"My rage masks feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. I drink away my problems. I'm Canadian, so I have free socialized healthcare, but I don't need it because I'm such a badass. I've died like a billion times now. I miss my daddy. I'm the reason there are like a half-dozen clawed supers now. I'm part of like 800 teams. I'm a caveman in yellow spandex."

Coincidentally, I was going to post a short Wolverine review. I just saw it on a plane. I see a lot of movies that way these days it seems. Not a great screen for an epic superhero film. I liked the twist ending. I don't know how many people saw it coming a mile away. I'm not good at all at seeing plot twists, so, it happens all the time to me that I get surprised when everybody says, "man, that was obvious!".

Yeah, it was somewhat slow in the beginning. And, ultimately, forgettable. Not something I'll be contemplating long after the movie is over. But, for a few hours entertainment, I thought it was fine.

I dislike Wolverine on principle simply because he tends to steal the show in whatever he's in.

Yeah, that about nails it. I did like one scene in the 4th or 5th of the series that only lasts for about two seconds, where a bunch of young X-Men are recruiting a team of gifted mutants to fight the bad mutants. They always manage to enlist their picks who readily understand the importance of the mission... except when they walk up behind Wolverine who sitting at the bar drinking with his usual scowl as if he hates his miserable life. Before they can say a word, he glares at them and says, "Fuck off!" They just turn around and head back out the door happy to be leaving without getting the shit beat out of them.

Just saw The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. I heard the basic premise of the first part, but, never saw it. So, there was lots and lots I did not understand. Raising three fingers means "I want someone to come beat the shit out of me"?

My brother, who saw the first part, explained what Katniss did with the berries to piss off the president in the previous Games.

I would say that in general, I found it interesting and enjoyable. I did find some parts not that plausible. For example, things like the President giving a personal visit to Katniss not believable. And, while I can accept the idea of something like the Games being a distraction for the masses, I did find it hard to believe that with all the President's power, that the Games could be that much of a driving force of whether the masses revolt or compliant. That the President could be that vulnerable to whether the Games worked out the way he wanted or not. But, it is of course just a story.

I don't see how it is not possible for the president to not visit Katniss.

He didn't even have a bodyguard. Visiting someone alone, who is famous for their ability to kill people? He's the President, doesn't he have a booked schedule? He doesn't have assistants to give her the message?

Monthy Python and The Search for the Holy Grail.(it's on Youtube in full)

How does a movie this shitty manage to crack you up with an unrelenting barrage of memorable quotalicious bits? Because Monthy Python.Life Of Brian has the pollish, the cultural rellevance, and the depth, and the laughs......but SftHG has your sides splitting.Verdict: NI !!

@case his bodyguards were outside. He knew she wouldn't try and kill him. That would mean her entire district would be killed. Much of what she does is for Prim. She wouldn't throw away both their lives like that. Snow is a devious motherfucker. He wanted to do it in person. Make it more effective. Which it was. He fucks her up with that conversation.

Frozen. It seemed like a nice movie for little girls on Christmas day, and it got good reviews from critics and viewers. I think it had a convoluted plot line with lots of holes in the plot, but I fell asleep during it several times so maybe that's why. The computer animation is stellar and it had some funny moments, but the plot wasn't interesting to me at least.

@Jutter... For Christmas, I bought my girls a plushy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and Killer Bunny. They love Search for the Holy Grail.

The movie wasn't bad. But as it states at the beginning, it was "inspired" by James Thurber, not "based on a short story" by James Thurber. It doesn't follow the book at all, except for a few day dreams that Walter has at the beginning of the movie. After that, he partakes in a real adventure that uses up about 3/4 of the film. The adventure outdoes his daytime musings, and gets him the girl. One gets the impression that after a dose of heavy real life adventure, Walter is cured.

This of course, misses the whole point of the original story. The writers seem to have misunderstood the original, or thought it was lacking. They wrote an entirely new story, and tried to garner audience attendance by stealing the title of a humorous classic.

This doesn't make it a bad movie, but it can't be compared to anything James Thurber ever wrote.

I just saw Donnie Darko the other day. Honestly, I'm disappointed. It seems like it was trying waaaay too hard to be deep, and I just stopped feeling attached to the narrative after awhile. Also, for a self described "psychological thriller", it wasn't very thrilling.

Damn, double post. Well, I also saw "Life of Brian" recently. It was...okay. The main problem is with this pacing. The movie just kinda dragged itself along. Oh, and the "Biggest Dickus" scene? Really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of comedy when you resort to penis jokes.

I watched the secret life of Walter Mitty yesterday, I was pleasantly surprised by it. I went in expecting a sucky movie but I had a really good time with it. Ben stiller did a good job with the more serious role that it offered.

Gravity, 8/10Very good movie. I never would have guessed Sandra Bullock could pull off such a performance. Don't get me wrong, I love her in things like Demolition Man, but I have not been too fond of her dramas (they tend to be too sappy for me), so this was a really pleasant surprise.

Also saw Elysium recently. Not even sure how to rate this movie. It has a great idea, but the vehicle it delivers it in is so predictable, so lacking in depth, I just barely was able to choke it down. Supposedly, the director was trying to make a big point about society today as well as the direction it is headed, but instead this movie comes off as just another action movie with too much CGI and not enough plot, with a case of shoving the moral down your throat at the end for good measure. It could have been done MUCH better. I did not care if Matt Damon's character (Max?) lived or died. Jodie Foster played a great bitch, but her motivations were flat, and again, I didn't even care enough to hate her. And I get emotional about almost everything in movies!

"Thor: The Dark World" -Was a little disappointment with this one after the recent awesomeness that has been present in the other "Avengers" movies. Still had it's points. Loki was great, as usual, and there were some twists that surprised me. Again, worth watching. 7/10

"Ender's Game" (second viewing) -This movie is much, much better the second time around. I still think people who've read the book will enjoy it more than those who haven't because so much of the depth in the development of Ender's character is missing. I can't figure out how "The Hobbit" is getting three overly long films to tell one simple story and a story that NEEDS an extra hour doesn't get it. 9.2/10. Hopefully this one will get a "Director's Cut" edition that adds more of the battle room and the strife between Dragon Army and the others as well as the build up to Ender's emotional break-down. If so (and if it's done as well as the rest of the film), it'll be worthy of a 10/10.

'All is Lost' starring Robert Redford. It's an artsy fartsy film about a man that is sailing by himself(never a good thing) in the middle of the Indian Ocean( also not a good thing). His boat is damaged by a container that fell off of a ship and floated around until it struck his sail boat. A storm comes up and further damages the sailboat beyond sea worthiness. He deploys a life raft and drifts. He tries to float to the commercial shipping lanes and actually makes it but the rare random ships don't see or respond to his flares. He sees a light and out of flares starts a fire that soon engulfs his life raft and send him into the ocean. Just about the time he gives up the light becomes a boat and a hand is extended saving his butt from drowning.One word of dialogue in this whole two hour movie..."FUUUUUUCK"!It is horrible. 0 out of 10!

The only possible criticism of this movie is the gooby snowman, but my 6 year old laughed so hard every time he was on screen, it is pretty obvious who he's there for.

They rewrote Hans Christian Andersons "The Snow Queen" pretty heavily, but created a wonderful story. The animation was beautiful and amazing. The songs are just fantastic! I was instantly moved by "Do you want to build a snowman?", and later "Let it Go" is worthy of a Broadway production.The characters are well written and the story keeps interest for all ages. It actually has a surprising plot twist, too.

Yep, I just rewatched it again, and it is still a 10/10 for me too. On the second rewatch, I must say Olaf grew on me. He is cute, and his solo "in summer" is so funny in a super ironic way.

My only dislike upon a rewatch is the love song by the trolls. I really don't like that scene. It is really out of character for the rest of the movie. And I think the trolls themselves are ok, good animation and design. Just really not liking the song right at that spot.

"Let it Go" makes me want to BE the Snow Queen. And I'm not alone, my daughter has already declared she wants me to make her this costume for Halloween (please). She's got exactly that white blond hair, but I'm concerned it is a little overly sexy for a 7 year old. I think if I make it without the slit, it will be fine. :) sorry, got a little off topic there. I just love this movie so much! I'm glad to see Disney seems to be having a second renaissance.

'The Book Thief'Man this is the best picture of the year maybe the decade. As usual Jeffery Rush is superb.10 out of 10. I'd pay the $14 to see it in a cinema. I saw it at my neighbor's media room. He has a 100 inch screen and there are no annoying babies crying to spoil the movie.

This is a character study of a divorced woman with psychological problems. I tend to like character studies. They depend on good writing while keeping an eye on human psychology. I also appreciate a production that can keep my interest without having to blow up a truck every 5 minutes.

I'm ordinarily not a big fan of Cate Blanchett. To me she's just an actress that appears in movies from time to time, but she certainly got my attention in this film. From now on, whatever role she might play, interesting or not, I'll at least know that this woman can act.

The movie is not as complex or exciting as the other films based on this Tom Clancy character. It's kind of a reboot, because it goes way back to the beginning of Ryan's career. There are no plot twists. Ryan is recruited by the CIA, is assigned a job, and he accomplishes his assignment. It's more interesting than watching a normal guy do his job for a year, and although Ryan's job is filled with danger, it's just a movie about watching a guy do a job. But if you are a fan of the franchise, it's something you probably should see.

It's a fairly accurate description of going through the correct survival tactics at sea. I thought that part was well done. I don't think the movie has wide appeal. I thought of it more as a visual instruction manual. Lost cargo containers have a reputation as serious hazards to navigation. So do unmarked fishing nets.

I liked the part where after his electronics failed, he got out a book on celestial navigation. I thought it remarkable that he actually learned how to do it so fast, however. I've watched instruction videos, and it seems like no simple thing. I never learned it either, even though I had books and a sextant on board (I've yet to meet a modern day sailor that can do it). However, I was armed to the teeth with backup self powered GPS units. Anyway, I related to taking off across the ocean without knowing celestial navigation. LOL

Things that bothered me:

I don't know why he waited so long to try and set the storm jib when he knew what was coming. But I know it happens.

Setting down an open knife in a rubber life raft bothers me. He did it twice without incident, but each time I wanted to yell out, "Close the God damned knife!"

My brother has recently been on a killer whale kick. Don't know why, but I wound up watching the documentaries Black Fish and The Whale as a result.

Black Fish is about Tilikum, the bull orca at Sea World that has already killed three people, one of them a trainer during a show. It didn't seem to have a very good or focused message, except that being an orca in captivity sucks balls. Well, duh. It didn't offer especially good solutions to the problem. It also seemed a bit unfocused, including elements of other whale attacks and spending a little time with wild orcas and how friendly they are.

The Whale is about a young bull orca called Luna that had gotten separated from its pod and lived in Nootka Sound, off the west coast of Vancouver Island. During this time he kept trying to interact with human beings, but the Canadian government decided to be dicks and make it a fine to even look at him, which led to him trying hard and harder to get attention until he tangled with a boat propeller and died, which is the main reason why the government imposed the fine in the first place. It's a sad story and bit too hippy dippy for my tastes.

We also watched Room 237, a documentary about the possible meanings of Stanley Kubrick's film version of The Shining. I was actually looking forward to it since after watching the internet video at kubrick2001.com gave me better insight and appreciation of 2001: a Space Odyssey, it would be nice to gain better understanding of the Shining. But it was not to be. The first thing they show you, the very first insight they attempt to impart is some dumb shit talking about how the movie is about the subjugation of the Native Americans by white people. This isn't even the stupidest, craziest theory put forth. One guy is convinced it's Kubrick telling us how he faked the moon landing footage for NASA.

I do not buy this for a second. Kubrick is a guy who was a great artist, even if I don't tend to find his movies very fun to watch. He did make his films about more than what they appear to be, but it was usually related in some way. These fucked up theories have nothing to do with the movie at all. Worse, this shit is padded. Using the weird scene where there's a guy with his head split open, one commentator goes off about some story her son had made up about a guy with his head split open. This is completely unrelated to the movie or anything relevant but we get to hear about it anyway. This is a bad movie with nothing of substance to offer. Avoid it.

The final film I've seen is Salinger, a biopic about J.D. Salinger. It was an interesting look at a life, but ended with a tease of the books that will be published now that he's dead starting in 2015. They don't sound like they'll be all that worthwhile. Do we really need a complete history of the Glass family or Holden Caufield's family? Fuck, no. Two other book the film mentions are lifted directly from his life, such as his intelligence work during WWII. I just watched the movie. I don't think I'll need any more of that.

Finally saw Zoolander. I feel dumber now. Granted, I know it's supposed to be a dumb movie, but it had the misfortune of being dumb and unfunny. Being funny is sort of an important thing for a comedy. There's the ant thing and "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills" and that's about it. Here are the other "jokes" you guys are missing out on: mispronouncing words, being unable to pee, giving yourself a wedgie, Earth to ___, computer illiteracy, repeating jokes that were barely passable the first time around, etc. If you can be entertained by funny faces and jingling car keys, then this is the show for you. Otherwise, don't bother.

enders game...I liked it. Nothing spectacular, and somewhat predictable , in fact I mentioned to the wife way before the final act 'acted'....but it was okay for a movie...again. Just holds the attention long enough for you to forget you haven't been laid in a month...er....skip that part. 6outa 10

Hi everyone!My name is Matt Pierce and I am from Winnipeg, MB, Canada. In today's society everything seems to be shared and spread on the Internet and through all kinds of media. Through my love of filming I had decided to create a documentary called, "Anchor". Anchor is a film about both Christian and Atheist perspectives on some of life's biggest questions such as "Who are we as humans?Ē, "Why are we here?", "What happens when we die?", "How should we live?", and ďFrom where do we get meaning and purpose in life?Ē The film will also explore what both Christianity and Atheism truly believe and whether they can provide sound reasoning for their assertions. I donít believe that Christianity and Atheism have been represented fairly in a film where recognized experts from both sides have been interviewed. By interviewing prominent speakers from each worldview, this film hopes to correct the common misrepresentations of each side.

Every single person has a worldview and how they form that worldview determines how they live their lives and how they answer each of these questions. It's the biggest part of our lives! It's only when these questions are all looked at together and really scrutinized that someone can tell if they have a coherent worldview or not. A person's worldview should be based on the truth, not on emotions, skepticism, or wishful thinking. Finding truth is extremely important and vital to living life. This documentary will be a hunt for that truth to see if it lies in either of these dominant worldviews.

I am about halfway finished as I have interviewed eleven people so far including Daniel Dennett and Paul Tripp. I am currently running an indiegogo campaign to raise the funds to finish it off. I would be truly honored and grateful if you were able to let me know what you think and to even share it with friends if you like the idea!

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I look forward to hearing back from you all!

I watched John Carpenter's The Thing last night. A fantastic psychological horror story, it makes me sad that the vast majority of horror films are just another shitty slasher movie when they could be fantastic and interesting films...

It's not a Scorcese film, but the way the story's told reminds me a lot of Goodfellas (the flash-forward at the beginning, that the story reaches again halfway through. The alternating character voice-overs.) Excellent preformances all around, including Louis CK's.

Been a long time since I watched godfather. I'll probably watch it again sometime and realize how much I missed last time. Every time I rewatch movies years later I always find a lot I missed last time. Same with books..I watched the Will Hay movies before on archive.org and watched again last night and they're funnier second time around.

The last 300 thing. Can someone tell me, what is the genre of this...thing?

Please do not say fantasy. Because apparently movie was hyped in another way and there are tons of 'discussions' about how it fits 'history' or not.

It could be a genre of its own, I suppose, although I would call it mythology. There is an established history of movies that have a mythological feel employing mesomorphic male and female warriors dressed in quirky body armaments designed to enhance the attractiveness of their bodies as they engage in bloody battle. They often include elements like dragons or the currently popular "krackens", but not always. If you choose not to call it fantasy, this series probably falls in that genere, whatever it is.

Someone gave me a Blu-ray of "300" in a sealed Blu-ray box. It was probably a freebee included with purchase of a Blu-ray player, and whoever received it wasn't even interested in watching it, and it eventually ended up in my hands. I had it in my possession for months before I watched it. It was OK, I guess, but not worth paying money to see. I don't know why Hollywood did a sequel. I guess a lot of people like this genre. Debating its historical accuracy is just something some people might want to do, just like in the thread about the historical accuracy of the movie Noah, which I would include in the genre.

The last 300 thing. Can someone tell me, what is the genre of this...thing?

Please do not say fantasy. Because apparently movie was hyped in another way and there are tons of 'discussions' about how it fits 'history' or not.

What's so baffling is that people needing an explanation for a movie like this in terms of 'historical facts'. :rotflmao: (American media, I suppose)

These 300 movies without doubt are the worst things ever made in the name of cinema, let alone the genre it aims. It's mostly 'implied' style violent porn for under 18. It contains so many absurdity even in its own absurdity, I wouldn't know where to begin with.

I understand this is another movie, potentially a series, based on books about dystopian futures for young adults. Very much like Hunger Games, and equal in interest IMO. I saw it yesterday and enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to a sequel.

I liked it well enough, to the point I would consider watching it a second time. I am pretty sure I have not said this, but I don't watch movies or read books more than once... even Star Wars (the original trilogy of course) I have only seen about 2 times, and the second time was very distracted. Book wise the only book I have read more than once, fully, is Hess' "Siddhartha".

So the fact that I would watch it again means I enjoyed it as much as Star Wars and "Siddhartha", which I think puts it above my normal scale of 1-10.

The Counselor 5/10I didn't understand what was going on. I might get more out of this movie by watching it again, but I don't care to watch it again. When I construct scenarios to fill in the parts of the story that are not explained, the story becomes mundane. If it were not for the graphic violence, there wouldn't be much to hold the audience's attention.

Finally saw Riddick (2013) and I was pleasantly surprised by it. I was expecting a rehash of Pitch Black, but it wasn't. It sort of tied Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick together while being different from both. There are some pretty tense and exciting moments in the film and a lot of the shots of the alien landscape are just gorgeous. The secondary characters are pretty forgettable and more than a little stupid. I kinda hoped for a really good antagonist like in Chronicles, but that didn't happen. But thankfully, you do see a fair share of Necromongers - I'm glad that arc hasn't been completely dropped - including a setup for a possible sequel that I would be very interested in.

Definitely a back-to-basics take on the franchise. Overall, it's not bad. 8/10

Fairly interesting, I thought. Unusual to say the least. I guess it was sort of a romantic comedy, but missing the expected "happily ever after." It did end on an upbeat note, but not the kind that brings a tear to the eye.

The last 300 thing. Can someone tell me, what is the genre of this...thing?

Please do not say fantasy. Because apparently movie was hyped in another way and there are tons of 'discussions' about how it fits 'history' or not.

What's so baffling is that people needing an explanation for a movie like this in terms of 'historical facts'. :rotflmao: (American media, I suppose)

These 300 movies without doubt are the worst things ever made in the name of cinema, let alone the genre it aims. It's mostly 'implied' style violent porn for under 18. It contains so many absurdity even in its own absurdity, I wouldn't know where to begin with.

Don't even waste your time.

I disliked the first 300. It turned Persians into either

A) MetrosexualsB) Goblins

I preferred the History Channels version of Thermopylae (however the fuck its spelled) and Meet the Spartans.

I watched the epic thriller JawsII the true story of the super giant killer great white shark who has an appetite for helicopters and the one teenage girl with her classically trained acting skills saying, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NOOOOOOOOOOOO! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!Spoiler Alert: Roy Schrider killed the super giant killer great white shark in the end.

I watched the epic thriller JawsII the true story of the super giant killer great white shark who has an appetite for helicopters and the one teenage girl with her classically trained acting skills saying, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NOOOOOOOOOOOO! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!Spoiler Alert: Roy Schrider killed the super giant killer great white shark in the end.

I watched the epic thriller JawsII the true story of the super giant killer great white shark who has an appetite for helicopters and the one teenage girl with her classically trained acting skills saying, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NOOOOOOOOOOOO! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!Spoiler Alert: Roy Schrider killed the super giant killer great white shark in the end.

The shark of that movie is 25 feet long. In the real life the biggest white sharks grow to about 20 feet long max. The average adult white sharks are about 15 feet long.

The shark of that movie is 25 feet long. In the real life the biggest white sharks grow to about 20 feet long max. The average adult white sharks are about 15 feet long.

On a tour of Universal studios, they show you the man made lake where they filmed Jaws. Apparently, the ocean views were dubbed in on a blue screen if I understand correctly. They still have a dock with some exploding oil barrels from the movie, and I can't remember now, but the shark may even leap out of the water. The studios are an adventure in capitalism. It's quite remarkable how they do that stuff.

In the real life white sharks are Orca bitches. Sometimes in the wild Orcas kill white sharks. Too bad the Orca movie suck.

But orcas are cute and cuddly looking. They look like big swimming pandas and they have them at Sea World where they swim in from the sea to do tricks for families and little kids! For GODS sake, what about the children? /whiney phoney concerned voice

Watched Dawn of the Dead..much better zomnies than TWD. They were athletic zombies that could run. I don't see how anyone could get caught by WD zombies, but those running zombies were bad ass! :shocked:Watching The Hills Have Eyes remake. So far the only good part is the blonde's ass.

I watched the epic thriller JawsII the true story of the super giant killer great white shark who has an appetite for helicopters and the one teenage girl with her classically trained acting skills saying, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NOOOOOOOOOOOO! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!Spoiler Alert: Roy Schrider killed the super giant killer great white shark in the end.

But orcas are cute and cuddly looking. They look like big swimming pandas and they have them at Sea World where they swim in from the sea to do tricks for families and little kids! For GODS sake, what about the children? /whiney phoney concerned voice

I had finally gotten around to watching Chronicle. For those who don't know or remember, which is most of you, it's a super hero-style story told Blair Witch style. Three friends find this thing that gives them all super powers. Pretty much just telekinesis which they can use to fly and create force fields and shit. Some telepathy is suggested but not explored.

I liked the movie, but I found myself identifying with the main character a bit too much. So much so that when I first started watching the opening scenes where we see how much he and his life sucks, I had to turn it off because I got too upset.

The main point of the story seems to be that people who've had shitty lives shut never get the ability to rise above it because they'll invariably misuse their new-found power. They've been taught that only dicks have power, so they'll become a dick when they get it. Or maybe it's just lashing out in anger at how shitty their life has been. But it's give a nerd the means to fight back, and you'll get Columbine. I'm not sure if that's a positive message.

But otherwise, I liked it. They get away from the found footage look by having the character use their powers to move the camera around. It has a great fight at the end between two super-powered characters that, I think, was better than that fucking Superman movie. Partially because the characters were better developed and the stakes were better explained. Scriptwriter Max Landis had put in a pitch for a Superman story to DC which they had stupidly rejected. They'd do better if they haired Max to write their DC heroes movies. He had better love for the material and an understanding of how to make it work.

Chronicle was a better movie than I thought it would be. Reminded me strongly of Akira, which I suspect was an influence. It showed how different people with extremes of life experiences and personalities might deal with ultimate power. Was a lot more philosophical in that sense than I expected.

Chronicle was a better movie than I thought it would be. Reminded me strongly of Akira, which I suspect was an influence. It showed how different people with extremes of life experiences and personalities might deal with ultimate power. Was a lot more philosophical in that sense than I expected.

Akira was mentioned in the Chronicles page on TV tropes for the same reason. Chronicles was good and I don't know if I said that in this thread. That particular movie gets a 5/5.

I heard about this film on some top 20 atheist friendly movie list. It was the #1 movie recommended, and described as hard to describe without spoiling it. And it's true. It's got no action, no special effects, mediocre acting, but a fascinating story to tell. I 100% recommend this movie. It's free on Hulu.

so Keanu Reeve's Ronin 47 or 47 Rodents or something involving the number 47......yeah..er.....if yer desperate for a movie try Heidi or Teenage mutant ninja turtles or maybe just eat some chocolate turtles while watching the grass grow.

So, I finally watched Battleship. I had a hard time getting through it because the beginning was just so terrible with all the military dick sucking. You know, there is a difference between being enthusiastically supportive of the millitary and sucking military dick. This movie falls in the later. Fortunately, this gets toned down a little once the aliens show up and kick their well-licked balls back into their abdominal cavity. But only a little, what with the amputee being a hero and the old guys running the ship and shit.

It's a shame these are bad things about the movie because there are the only things I can really recall. I remember there were these killer ball things so Hasbro could sell toys of them and a sequence where they track the aliens by essentially playing the game Battleship, but otherwise it's forgettable. The main character is a ponce who never stops being a ponce and is ultimately rewarded for his poncitude. And... fuck. Were there any other characters in this movie? I ask because I can't really remember. I only remember the main character because he got the most screen time and he was an insufferable ponce for every second of it.

There was the blond chick girlfriend. I remember she was kind of hot, but that thumbs-up at the end made me want to hit her in the head with a snow shovel, which is how all my relationships end.

There was the nerdy scientist guy who has an arch lifted from the Big Book of Predictable Character Archs You Shouldn't Use In Your Movie, You Dumb Shits by E. B. White. Actually, there was this one scene where he had to go get a piece of magical scientific equipment from an area overrun with aliens and while he's getting it, he's spotted by an alien. The alien looks a little thinner and weedier than the others and I thought they were going to do something with this, BUT THEY DON'T.

Assholes.

One top of all this, the movie is poorly photographed. Too many tracking shots, zoom in closeups, etc that I suddenly because aware of every single fucking camera movement. Maybe I would not have if it was a good story with compelling characters. but it wasn't and they didn't have any characters. Just ponces and props. That's what the old guys were. Fucking props.

The fight was two battles, #1 to knock him down, and the second to punish him enough so that you don't have to fight him again, worked fine on a one-on-one.

Then the military/government approach of total annihilation, unwarranted!

I agree about the military mentality, but why the fuck is it always that little kids are the only ones to save the world??? I just can't get past this. In anime it's the same, Evangelion and the like, it's always "the aliens/ ghosts/ whatever the fuck is going to destroy the universe, and the only one capable of opposing them is... a group of elementary school kids equipped with... I mean seriously?!?

"Marina", a Belgian movie about the life of Rocco Granata. Truly a great movie, though I may be biased. Great acting, beautifull story, a few good songs in there. Really just fun to watch. If you are a guy, I would recommend watching this with your girl if she wants to watch something romantic. It's got a good enough story to keep you interested that I usually find lacking in romantic films. Downside? It's in Dutch and Italian so it'll be subbed for most of you. Yet, it's a great movie. Would reccomend.

Fantastic movie about real life events in Formula 1.Very well written and acted with good action.I really liked that Ron Howard stayed true to formula 1. No going at it like bumper cars which is not at all what happens in Formula 1.

Fantastic movie about real life events in Formula 1.Very well written and acted with good action.I really liked that Ron Howard stayed true to formula 1. No going at it like bumper cars which is not at all what happens in Formula 1.

It Came from Beneath the Sea:SLOW. The attack on the city if entertaining and the monster is fairly well done but it takes way too long for the protagonists to figure out what the audience already knows and somehow manages to not have any tension while waiting for them to figure it out.

20 Million Miles to Earth:Some great Harryhausen special effects, especially the fight with the elephant. The plot is just ok if you don't over think it. The pacing is fairly decent (much better then It Came) and it has a few scenes that will really grab your attention. The halfhearted attempt to tack a love story onto the plot was unnesasary and unsuccessful. Some say it is a King Kong knockoff: I'd say its plot is worse but the special effects are better.

Just watched "Odd Thomas" on NetFlix and loved it. It's kind of a quirky dark humor film based on a Dean Koontz novel. I'm gonna have to read the book now.

Took a chance on this one over the weekend and was very pleasantly surprised. As a long time fan of the books I wasn't expecting much from the film, especially considering it was nearly direct to DVD. It's not the typical direct to DVD though as litigation tied up it's release and they apparently got tired of waiting and simply threw it out on the DVD market in hopes of getting some kind of return. Anton Yelchin did a great job as Odd and Addison Timlin was good as Stormy. I especially enjoyed her sheer panty camel-toe scene! (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/shocked.gif)

All-in-all a good adaptation of a book to make an entertaining film. 7/10

I've also been watching "Orphan Black" from BBC Americas on-demand. This is one of, if not the the best, TV shows in a long, long time. Basic premise: Sarah Manning returns to (generic North Am. city, I think they mention New York but it looks more like Ontario) after nearly a year away. Upon here arrival she witnesses her doppelganger commit suicide by train. She decides to run a scam, taking the dead girl's place and things start to get real interesting. 9.5/10. If you're interested, watch from the beginning. There's too much back story to be able to really understand the plot if you jump in now. You can find on-demand here: http://www.bbcamerica.com/orphan-black/where-to-watch-orphan-black/ Seriously good show!

Mama - first half of the movie was okay, had some scary moments and atmosphere, acting wasn't to outstanding except for the little girls.Then second half it just wilts and becomes funny instead of scary when you see the horribly rendered cgi 'mama', the bad acting just gets worse, and nothing redeemable about it.

After 5 or 6 X-Men movies, with the one devoted to Wolverine a throw-away, and the last one a bit jarring for me with the teenage versions of Xavier and Eric, this last film brings the new and old characters together into a very interesting story that kept my attention very well. I think it's the best movie I've seen this summer, even without the hype given to Captain America and Spiderman. I think it's the additional element of a good tale added to the typical Superhero formula that makes the difference for me. It helps to have seen the previous films. Otherwise, there are parts of the movie that will cause you to think you missed something.

Jennifer Lawrence takes over the sexy blue shape shifting character of Mystique, and I bring this up to point out a glaring error in the film. It's a rather big error (which I also forgive). The nearly naked quality of her blue form early in the movie shows her from the back and clearly reveals a zipper from the back of her neck to her bottom. :wtff: We all know Hollywood is going to use a body suit for the character, and in later scenes, the editing room fuzzes the zipper out. But I'm pretty sure the real Mystique wouldn't be shifting her shape by donning a wardrobe of various body suits. :smiley:

Still it's a very good movie that ties in with the previous X-Men plots without simply repeating a plot with a new set of villains, like superhero sequels often do.

Just watched There's Something about Mary. It's almost my life story minus the happy ending and I ran into my "Mary" (named Paige) years later and she'd gained about 250 lbs and a really bad alcohol and drug problem. Talk about fucking disappointed. Geeez!

Got to hear that live a couple or three times in the 70s and early 80s. The first time was the very last venue for the 2112 tour on August 1st 1976. Their next show a week later kicked off the All the World's a Stage tour. The set list didn't change much.

Something eighties spaceguy Benny, who's yearning to build a spaceship SPACESHIP SPACESHIP!!!, had a worn out decall and (sure enough) that crack across the chin in his helmet, so that gave me a nostalgasm. Also: secretly this is the best movie with Batman in it... ever.

https://archive.org/details/Oh_Mr.Porter_1937 Maybe one of the funniest old Brit films you'll ever watch. Will Hay was flat out funny as hell and probably a lot of the inspiration for Monty Python. If you watch this and don't think it's funny there's something wrong with you. :lol:

Surprisingly good Science Fiction movie that struck me as refreshingly unique. The plot seemed new, but in thinking about it on the way home, I've seen variations of it once or twice, although not done as well as this movie, in my opinion. I almost passed on this one, because the coming attractions left me flat. Compared to today's cookie cutter formula for "big machines fighting aliens" movies, this one had an entirely new problem to overcome. They still had to figure out how to bash the Hell out of the enemy with their futuristic machines, but that was truly a secondary issue dwarfed by a much bigger problem, which I won't give away.

I've been going through those Mill Creek boxed sets of fifty movies for five bucks and on the last disc in the Sci-fi Invasion is a movie that I found to be special.

First of all, I don't know why it's on the sci-fi set. It's a martial arts movie. Supposedly there's mind control involved, but this is barely mentioned and unexplained. I guess they needed one more to make fifty, but they have plenty of sci-fi crap they could have put here. So I don't get it.

Second, and this is a personal thing since I watched every one of these shitty movies one by one, all twelve discs have the same DVD menu with the same music loop playing over and over until you want to chew your own face off. The music is the theme from Death Machines. So now I have Stockholm syndrome. Well, okay then.

But I realized this movie was special within the first few minutes where we see three sets of duded fighting using (fingerquotes) "martial arts" until one by one they slay their opponent. The third guy awkwardly reaches up the pant leg of his karate pants and just shoot his guy. That's good martial artin' right there. Usually with a cheesy movie like this, you get something like that and then nothing that good happens again. but then a few minutes later, the three mind controlled karate assassins take out a target with a fucking bazooka.

This movie is just bafflingly bad, but bad in an interesting way. This keeps it entertaining. It's actually a really good bad movie.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 - How amazing. I loved every minute of it. It may be the darkest American animated movie I've ever seen.

Grade: A

"How to Train Your Dragon 2"

Dreamworks has figured out how to make sequels. Boy, have they! I did not believe the few people I've heard saying that this one is every bit as good as the first, if not better. I won't say better, yet. Not until I've waited a couple days and maybe seen it again. But, it just might be! I'll give it a grade/rating in a few days.

I actually like that Dreamworks has decided to not follow the "Disney Happy Happy, Joy Joy" path of the last 15-20 years. The "dark" aspects of these films are, I think, what puts them over the top.

Catching a matinee of this flick on a Monday afternoon, the old ladies who were the only other people in the theater were talking as they left. I overheard one of them say "That was very good. It was better than the book," reminded me why old ladies make terrible film critics.

The film wasn't bad, exactly. What it was is a note for note retread of the novel. It really didn't do anything spectacular to make it better than the novel. It wasn't spectacular as a film overall. Very workmanlike, but no real flair, I thought. There were a couple missed opportunities for the director to add flair, but I guess the director has no ambitions to be memorable. But that's okay. Not everyone has to try to be the next Spielberg, especially old fart Spielberg. But it does not a great movie make.

Part of the problem is the character that eventually dies of cancer by the end-- spoilers-- doesn't look very sick as their health is supposedly deteriorating. Maybe not every actor is willing to lose the amount of weight Christian Bale lost for The Machinist, but a little paleness added to those chubby cheeks would have been nice and keeping with the point of the novel, which is an unblinking look at young people living with cancer and how much it sucks. Having a character succumb to a version of Ali MacGraw's Disease (movie illness in which the only symptom is that the sufferer grows more beautiful as death approaches) was just a bad idea.

It seems to be a lot of little things like this that aren't necessarily important but they add up to a production that really didn't care as much about making a good film as just making a film. Another example is a character with eye cancer who eventually loses both eyes. One of his eyes is glass but it's obvious the actor does not have a glass eye. Reading the novel, I imaged the character had thick glasses which would have distorted his eyes enough to make the non-glass glass eye less noticeable. This was a simple thing that would have improved things, but they didn't do it because the stage glasses with perfectly flat lenses were good enough. "They could have, but they didn't" should be the tagline on the poster.

That all said, it's not a bad movie. Just a movie that does a pedestrian adaptation of a popular novel. I have read the novel, along with all of John Green's other works. I'll say it is his best book yet. His first novel, Looking For Alaska, was sort of like a semi-autobiographical first novel, as it's set in a prep school in Alabama and Green attended Prep school in Alabama, poor kid. His second, An Abundance of Katherines, was the typically indulgent sophomore effort where the main character is a child prodigy and therefore less likable. Paper Towns felt like the same formula in Looking for Alaska perfected and enjoyable as such, but hopefully he won't try to polish that formula anymore because it will get old. The Fault In Our Stars is his best novel because it's so unlike his previous works that were mostly the same characters in similar situations with a nerdy main character that is obviously based on Green himself. Hopefully he'll try bold moves like this in the future instead of going back to the old formula or worse, making a formula out of teenaged girls with cancer.

This is what the movie is built upon, but it never really adds to it or rises above it. it's good, but if you've read the book, you don't to see the movie.

On a personal note, the actress playing the main character, Shailene Woodley, reminded me quite a bit of my sister-in-law. The one whose daughter died. This made the view experience a tad spooky for me. Were I a more spiritual and therefore self-centered individual, I would say this casting was meant just for me on some level. I doubt it, but I find it weird that they didn't cast an actress that didn't make me think of my niece who'd died of cancer. I mean, jeez.

Back to 1942Subtitles from ChineseAbout the Henan famine and Japanese invasion during WWII and a old man who lost everything and had to sell family to survive. Probably the saddest movie you'll ever watch and a reminder just how cheap life can be on this planet. Dialog moves quickly so have your reading glasses on.

Back to 1942Subtitles from ChineseAbout the Henan famine and Japanese invasion during WWII and a old man who lost everything and had to sell family to survive. Probably the saddest movie you'll ever watch and a reminder just how cheap life can be on this planet. Dialog moves quickly so have your reading glasses on.

Recently watched "Her". 9/10.I thought it might be trite or boring, but it was neither. The pace is slow but steady, and keeps you interested in what is going to happen next. The dialog is thoughtful. The movie is a lot deeper than I would have expected.

Recently watched "Her". 9/10.I thought it might be trite or boring, but it was neither. The pace is slow but steady, and keeps you interested in what is going to happen next. The dialog is thoughtful. The movie is a lot deeper than I would have expected.

I'm going to watch the DVD later tonight, unless I get sidetracked. I have the same trepidations you described, but I see that viewers seem to think it's a fairly good flick.

Granted, I've been in the mood for a unique movie after reaching a summer saturation point with Superhero action films. I like those too, but there's a lot of other worthwhile subject matter besides that, and I've had a craving for something like Her for awhile now. I was able to identify with a lot of Her on a psychological level from my own experience, rather than engaging myself in something that I can only relate to as fantasy. Actually, Her is sci fi and consequently has a fantasy component, but it is more cerebral and was a welcome change of pace.

I'm glad you enjoyed "Her" SGOS. There is a crowd out there that doesn't seem to get it. Perhaps it is simply that they cannot relate. I also felt pretty connected to it, not just the main character (though he is a man, and I am a woman, his character has some universal traits that I think either gender and any sexual orientation could relate to), but also the side characters.There is a lot being said in this movie, and not all of it is on the surface. I noticed the background images and people quite often as part of the story. The elevator stands out the most in my memory, I thought it was quite strikingly done.

I'm going to see How to Train Your Dragon 2 this afternoon with my daughter. I hear it is pretty dark, so I hope she enjoys it. It is getting pretty good reviews from critics and audiences, so my hopes are up. :)

Something eighties spaceguy Benny, who's yearning to build a spaceship SPACESHIP SPACESHIP!!!, had a worn out decall and (sure enough) that crack across the chin in his helmet, so that gave me a nostalgasm. Also: secretly this is the best movie with Batman in it... ever.

Final verdict: everything is awesome!

Just saw the movies and I have to agree. This is the best movies I've seen in years.

So, they took an actual general from WWII, who was also married and his wife was stationed with him many places during the war, and gave him a fictional affair with a Japanese woman, which was filler throughout the film.

It's not the only reason why this gets a 5/10 but it's at least 80% why.

Went to watch Maleficent in theatres yesterday. Not really my thing to start with, so perhaps not a fair judge in this.

Yet all in all I would give it a decent 7/10. If you like these 'darker' fairytales/disneymovies, I could even understand you giving it an eight.

The film gets progressively better. The child-acting in the first ten minutes is atrocious. But as the movie grows darker and more violent, it gets more entertaining. And the CGI which first looks childish and dodgy becomes more convincing in less light.

I personally think the leap to 'evil empress' that the title-character makes is kind of a non-sequiter, even though the cause is a terrible cause. But then again, this is a children's movie and I suppose I can't really fault it for that. All in all, the story actually seems like a good way to teach young kids that good and evil isn't the black-and-white version they were told as kindergardeners.

I did not care for the narrator, however, nor the part it played in the predictable ending. Of course, these kind of movies can't really be blamed to have a standard-happy-ending, but with a movie that toyed with darkness and gave twist to thte most known part of the story (though you can see it coming) and tried to stand out from the average disney-movie, I'd hoped for a more unique ending.

But all in all, not a bad movie and definitely something a guy can suffer through when trying to score some points with his date.

How To Train Your Dragon 2 (in 3d). 9/10. The first one's story is SLIGHTLY better, but the animation in the second one is incredible.

First off, I'm probably swayed by the fact this is the first 3D movie I've seen in theatres, and damn was it impressive! The animation made my stomach swoop and dive with Hiccup, Toothless and the other dragon riders. It felt pretty awesome. I enjoyed the story, liked the darkness of it and the ultimate hopefulness of it, no matter how predictable it was.

Also, seeing it with my 7 year old daughter, who immediately afterward dubbed it The BEST movie she'd EVER seen!! is probably affecting my rating a bit. But it was pretty darn impressive.

Looking back on it from outside the awe factor, the plot is a tad predictable, and the pacing is odd at times, but I think it more than makes up for it with the most awesome mom in a cartoon (IMO, at least that I can think of)...ever. :D And also, I just love that It was a well done sequel, which seems a truly rare thing in Hollywood.

Just saw the movies and I have to agree. This is the best movies I've seen in years.

I'd give the Lego Movie a 10/10. There just wasn't anything I disliked. I was constantly pleasantly surprised by the movie. It really is one of the best movies I've seen in ages, but I've been on a roll with good movies lately. I've seen a few dud, but also a lot of great ones!

I'd give the Lego Movie a 10/10. There just wasn't anything I disliked. I was constantly pleasantly surprised by the movie. It really is one of the best movies I've seen in ages, but I've been on a roll with good movies lately. I've seen a few dud, but also a lot of great ones!

Not being critical here but I couldn't find a review of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes. the rating I found was for age level six. Any movie that uses Rob Schneider for a voice actor can't be good. :eek:

Not being critical here but I couldn't find a review of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes. the rating I found was for age level six. Any movie that uses Rob Schneider for a voice actor can't be good. :eek:

Blackfish. I don't even know how to rate this film. Whatever your stance, it is an extremely well done documentary.I'm not an animal activist. I have in the past, and may someday in the future, raise my own food animals. But an orca is not a food animal. And I also believe that even food animals should be well treated.

Anyway, I think absolutely everyone should see this film. I'm serious. I was devastated. I felt like I SHOULD be an animal rights activists. I will never ever, unless under threat of death go to Sea World, now. And I say that after I looked for, read and watched rebuttals to this film. The facts are, the film is right, and Sea World is....well go watch the film!!

I saw it months ago, and it still pops randomly, and not so randomly, into my mind. I chaperoned part of my daughters 1st grade class's zoo field trip, and this movie was in my head so often while looking at the "animal exhibits". I saw a preview for a movie about a rescued dolphin, (in captivity for life of course), and I just felt horror, not the hope and joy the preview was trying to evoke in me.

This movie/documentary is the only one of it's kind that profoundly changed the way I view something, in this case a large portion of human interactions with the animal world.

I saw the play, Jersey Boys, in Chicago a couple years ago, and I enjoyed it very much (I don't usually have a great enthusiasm for plays). Granted part of my interest was the unique way it handled scene changes, which wouldn't work in a movie. If they needed a restaurant scene, there were no stage hands to do it. The lights dimmed a bit and the actors themselves would push a table out onto the stage, and carry in their own chair, which they would briskly plop down and then sit on it. The lights would come up again, and presto! There were the bare essentials of a restaurant. All this would be done in just a couple of seconds. However, the movie is not getting hot reviews from critics, which probably has little to do with how enjoyable the movie might be. I'm not sure I'll go see it at the theater yet. But I'd like to hear if anyone has seen it.

Is that the only play you've ever seen? 'Cause that pretty much how much of them work; but why that would have any bearing on how good the performance is...I have no idea.

-Nam

No, I've seen maybe 20 plays in my lifetime, usually when I visit my city friends or relatives, but I've never seen it done that way, so it was unique to me. And being from the sticks, I thought it was quite clever. Note that wasn't all that was good about the play. The music brought back nostalgic memories. The story line was marginal, but that seems to be typical of musicals.

Transformers 4 - Well, what can I say? I love action. This has to be the worst of all of them (I loved part 1!). I did not like any of the humans. At least Shia was funny and the parents were lovable in the other three. In this one we have an annoying ass dad, a hot daughter, and a boyfriend. They had nothing to offer (Didn't expect them to!). Anyways, the action was cool. Although it seemed scaled down compared to all the others. No matter what, I will always love Bumblebee! Everytime he was on screen I felt like a little boy! That will always be the best part of these movies.

Transformers 4 - Well, what can I say? I love action. This has to be the worst of all of them (I loved part 1!). I did not like any of the humans. At least Shia was funny and the parents were lovable in the other three. In this one we have an annoying ass dad, a hot daughter, and a boyfriend. They had nothing to offer (Didn't expect them to!). Anyways, the action was cool. Although it seemed scaled down compared to all the others. No matter what, I will always love Bumblebee! Everytime he was on screen I felt like a little boy! That will always be the best part of these movies.

I've already decided I won't bother to see Transformers 4. Like others here I was delightfully surprised by 1. The rest got progressively less interesting. I left the theater in the middle of the third one.

Brief plot synopsis: Guy is asked by his pharmaceutical employer to go to Haiti and find the zombie powders and bring them back so modern medicine can use them to make a new kind of anesthetic. Guy finds out Voodoo is real, but zombie powder is still just a mix of known scientific substances that the drug companies can still use....plus hot mixed race sex throw in there somewhere.

I found it painfully bad. At first it was annoying, with terrible narration and acting by Bill Paxton. The only redeeming quality being a strong black female lead. But then the plot got SUPER stupid AND slow at the same time. There were moments I actually started dozing off on my husband shoulder, followed by a random explosion or loud exclamation that would wake me, only to get boring again and I'd start dozing off. I was awake for the end, which was just silly piled on top of stupid.

This is supposed to be an interesting book. Maybe I'll give that a try, but probably not. Anyway, if you are having insomnia, I highly recommend this movie. If you want an enjoyably bad flick, this isn't it though.

Brief plot synopsis: Guy is asked by his pharmaceutical employer to go to Haiti and find the zombie powders and bring them back so modern medicine can use them to make a new kind of anesthetic. Guy finds out Voodoo is real, but zombie powder is still just a mix of known scientific substances that the drug companies can still use....plus hot mixed race sex throw in there somewhere.

My husband hat a fit of movie nostalgia and asked me to watch this with him on Netflix. He remembered it as being pretty cool. I found it painfully bad. At first it was annoying, with terrible narration and acting by Bill Paxton. The only redeeming quality being a strong black female lead. But then the plot got SUPER stupid AND slow at the same time. There were moments I actually started dozing off on my husband shoulder, followed by a random explosion or loud exclamation that would wake me, only to get boring again and I'd start dozing off. I was awake for the end, which was just silly piled on top of stupid.

This is supposed to be an interesting book. Maybe I'll give that a try, but probably not. Anyway, if you are having insomnia, I highly recommend this movie. If you want an enjoyably bad flick, this isn't it though.

I agree. I was expecting more from the movie. I read a synopsis of the book, and it really intrigued me.

Brief plot synopsis: Guy is asked by his pharmaceutical employer to go to Haiti and find the zombie powders and bring them back so modern medicine can use them to make a new kind of anesthetic. Guy finds out Voodoo is real, but zombie powder is still just a mix of known scientific substances that the drug companies can still use....plus hot mixed race sex throw in there somewhere.

I found it painfully bad. At first it was annoying, with terrible narration and acting by Bill Paxton. The only redeeming quality being a strong black female lead. But then the plot got SUPER stupid AND slow at the same time. There were moments I actually started dozing off on my husband shoulder, followed by a random explosion or loud exclamation that would wake me, only to get boring again and I'd start dozing off. I was awake for the end, which was just silly piled on top of stupid.

This is supposed to be an interesting book. Maybe I'll give that a try, but probably not. Anyway, if you are having insomnia, I highly recommend this movie. If you want an enjoyably bad flick, this isn't it though.

I saw that a few years ago and agree it's pretty dry. I only watched it because it was the only realistic depiction of zombies in film. I'm so sick of zombies and they all get it wrong , anyway.

I saw that a few years ago and agree it's pretty dry. I only watched it because it was the only realistic depiction of zombies in film. I'm so sick of zombies and they all get it wrong , anyway.

How do people get something fictional, wrong? If you think about it zombies have been around in literature for over 2,000 years. So, unless the first story ever written about a person rising from the dead is what you're speaking about, which I doubt, then no one gets it wrong.

Well, in the 90's there was talk of making a Spider-man movie and one of the scripts allegedly circulating involved the main character not becoming a super hero but turning into a half-human, half-spider monstrosity. So it is possible to get something fictional wrong.

And zombies are not fictional. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvius_Narcisse)

17% on the Tomatometer from the Critics. Fans are up around 60%. Professional critics must be looking for something else, although 60% is hardly stellar. I don't see much competition from this week's new releases, however.

17% on the Tomatometer from the Critics. Fans are up around 60%. Professional critics must be looking for something else, although 60% is hardly stellar. I don't see much competition from this week's new releases, however.

I said made bank, not reviewed well.

Dark of the Fallen (stupid title) made $402 Million on a $200 million budget ($836 worldwide).Revenge of the Moon (stupider title) made $352 Million ($1,123 million worldwide) on a $195 million budget.

So, yes. They made serious bank. Especially in places where they don't speak English and thus don't know Shia LaBeuf is a terrible actor.

Spent the last few days watching documentaries.The Institute: 2/10It starts out sort of amusing. The idea of the game itself sounds fun, and there are a few funny interviews or filmed moments, but mostly it's just pretentious and boring, with a side of some seriously disturbed and sad life people.

The Cove: 10/10This is probably the most disturbing thing I've ever seen, ever. Like, a live horror movie that actually happens every year.So, without spoiling the entire thing, the basic story is that one of the trainers from the 70's show Flipper had a massive change of heart (for good reason) about cetacean captivity, and during his world roaming to save dolphins, discovered that hundreds of dolphins were being killed off the coast of Japan in a cove near a small fishing town. But he can't get in to see what is REALLY happening. He recruits a real life Oceans 11 team, including someone who works of Industrial Light and Magic to help disguise their cameras, and they infiltrate the area and film it.

Holy....shit.

I researched the movie a little before watching it, and learned that the Japanese claim the dolphins were killed quickly and humanely, and their meat was eaten.I told my husband I had no problem if they were eating the meat, even though I know dolphins are very intelligent, if they are killing them humanely.

BUT...[spoiler]But they aren't. I have seen cows and pigs and chickens in horribly inhumane conditions that made me angry and upset. I've seen cows take minutes to die, go down and struggle. It's not ok, and it is why I only buy free range chicken and beef and eggs.

How they kill those dolphins was one of the most horrific things I've ever watched. It was like watching well armed soldiers walk into a primitive village, take the young females out for "breeding", and then violently slaughter the helpless old men, women and children right in front of each other, screaming and everything. I have NEVER seen so much blood. It actually changes the texture of the ocean water, not just the color.The details that they should not be eating the meat, that it is highly contaminated and unsafe for consumption, that the Japanese view dolphins as pests and competition for the fish in the area, that they sell it as more expensive "whale" meat and are poisoning their own people, that many in the Japanese government know all of this and tell outright lies about what really goes on there and are buying out the representatives of countries in only agency that might be able to protect these animals is just the horrible icing on the horrible cake. [/spoiler]Between this movie and Blackfish, for the first time ever I have a very strong urge to do something about an issue, to take action! But I don't know what, so instead I feel sit here feeling helpless.

Long story short, I highly recommend it. If you have a strong stomach.

Are all Men Pedophiles?: 7/10Has some very good points and arguments. Some of it is just undeniably true. The fear of pedophiles in the west has started to break down the relationships of men with children. The west has over-defined the term pedophile and many people who are not actually pedophiles are being labeled as such and denounced as predators.My only problems with this movie are that the "dark" interviews are poorly done, and the accents are so thick with the narrator and all the experts that some of it is hard to understand.Still, I really do think everyone should watch this one as well.

I Escaped a Cult: 5/10I feel truly sorry for these people, but the interviews were not very compelling, and the pacing was horrible. Only 2 family stories, so it felt really long and drawn out. It's kind of interesting, might recommend it if you are really into this topic. But I think all religions are cults (of varying degrees).

Dark of the Fallen (stupid title) made $402 Million on a $200 million budget ($836 worldwide).Revenge of the Moon (stupider title) made $352 Million ($1,123 million worldwide) on a $195 million budget.

So, yes. They made serious bank. Especially in places where they don't speak English and thus don't know Shia LaBeuf is a terrible actor.

Source: Box Office Mojo.

Yes, I understood that. My reply was additional information about #4, and not really a relevant response to "making bank."

And I have to agree with you about LaBeuf. I've often wondered why he plays in so many movies, because I don't think he's that interesting of an actor. It always seems like he's playing the same character.

Meh. The story is weak, although the same could be said of the original. The new aesthetic is a little bit simpler than the original. I don't know about the loss of bike helmets and the addition of motorcycle helmets. The de-aging of Jeff Bridges is pretty uncanny valley. They could have made this work by making all programs look like that or maybe it would have worked in black and white (the original movie filmed the actors in B&W) But they didn't do that. Pity. Otherwise the movie retreads the original too much and plays on the nostalgia way, way, way too much instead of being it's own story that is worth telling. I suppose, in the end, it's one of the better latter day sequels to have been made. It just wasn't all that good, either.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

This one is tough. First of all, because of the last six X-Men movies, I only saw three of them. And I didn't even mean to see The Wolverine. I just got invited to a sneak peak and went more to be sociable than because I wanted to see that shit.

That said, this movie was pretty good. Partially because it wasn't an adaptation of the comic book story, which would be impossible since events and characters from the comic book story were already mined by the first movie. It's kind of like how Batman is constantly whining about his dead parents because he has no other character. Days of Future Past is the definitive X-Men story and regular characters keep coming back in time from this dark future they made never happen, the second Pheonix and Bishop if I remember correctly.

Adaptations are a tricky bird because no matter how much you get right, you are going to get something wrong and some asshole is going to think it was important. This movie just plain gets everything wrong, so it really don't matter. It makes it easier to stop worrying about accuracy or if Ellen Page could act older so that it would be believable and shit like that and just watch the fucking movie. I honestly do not know what to think of this. I tend to think that accuracy counts in storytelling but that this movie managed to render all nitpicking moot is a feat worth applauding and perhaps even studying.

I'm still not enjoying these superhero movies as much as I should, but this one is well done. I really can't think of anything else to say about it.

I watched the new Riddick movie last night and thought it was good, but I would have preferred a different main character than Vin Diesel. I guess I'm tired of seeing him in the Fast and furious movies that I only watch for the cars and Jordana Brewster. :drool: :wink2:

Just watched Black Swan with natalie portman in, ma pal told me it was gd so i gave it a watch, turned out it was nobad even tho it was about ffn ballet , didnt think i would like it but i did ffs......... :pidu:

Just watched Black Swan with natalie portman in, ma pal told me it was gd so i gave it a watch, turned out it was nobad even tho it was about ffn ballet , didnt think i would like it but i did ffs......... :pidu:

It's not about ballet though. It's about one person's descent into madness. Besides, awesome girl-on-girl scene with Natalie Portman and any reasonably hot chick is plenty of reason to see this one! (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/hubba.gif)

Decent movie. It's about a post plague war between the few plague survivors and the partly evolved apes. This is the way we imagine it happening in the 1960s epic film. But there are still millions of years of evolution that we would have to go through to get to that point. That would be like 300,000 sequels at the rate it's going. While it's a good action movie, the story line is a far cry from the original, where the apes had set up a semi advanced culture complete with it's own myths and fundamentalist religion that prevented any scientific achievement that might throw religious beliefs into question. And rather than include much of the original's ape bigotry, the last film is more about survival.

As hokey as the ape costumes were, I think the original low tech film was a much superior thought provoking story, although given its lack of advanced film making technology, it could almost be treated as poignant humor with an important message. Such a film today might offend the new millennium's anti-evolutionary fundamentalists who reject science and would not want to be put in a position of seeing how closely their own religion resembles that of the close minded backward simian religious beliefs of the original film.

Or maybe, it's just because Hollywood now focuses on action and special effects, often to the detriment of good story telling. Still it's a fair movie.

"I'm Not Scared" Subtitles available on NetflixA small boy in the Italian countryside finds another boy his own age chained up in a pit dug in the yard of an abandoned farmhouse then discovers he was the victim of a badly botched kidnapping. The local town is in on it including his own parents. Very intense sad movie.

Saw Thor: Dark World. 7/10. It was entertaining and it had its moments, but it needed a rewrite. Badly.

First off, I hate all the humans in this movie. There was no real point in having Earth be a part of this story anyway. Stupid love triangle was stupid. And they basically turned her (I don't care enough about her to bother learning her name) into a living macguffin, which was horrible, but a million times better than watching her try to date some poor schmuck. And frankly, the whole damn science team was physically painful to watch. The cell phone reception scene alone made me facepalm so hard, let alone the weaponized portals. These characters actually distracted from the story, which easily could've been just about the Asgardians and the Dark Elves.

And speaking of the Dark Elves, I actually really liked them. Their ships are cool. Those implosion grenades are cool. Their Black Rage powerup crystal thingies are cool. Their armor is cool. Those creepy masks are creepy. And their motivation is only mildly cliched - they don't do evil for evil's sake, don't want to conquer Earth or anything (in fact, they don't give two craps about the Earth, which makes their presence on Earth really puzzling) - they just want to unmake existence and return it to primordial chaos. Now there's a goal I can get behind. And best of all, they're led by the 9th Doctor. Awesome.

I also really liked the Asgardians. The part where Loki "dies" in Thor's arms was great. Their whole dynamic was great, let's see more of that. But there were two things I really didn't like about them - Thor is apparently quite the trickster himself, which really threw me for a loop as it didn't seem to fit with this characterization at all. He's a stern, duty-bound warrior with all the subtlety of a 2x4. He's very much like his weapon - blunt, powerful, and very straightforward. This is the kind of guy who not only does not use deceit, but looks down on it. The second thing is Loki's offscreen coup d'etat. Wtf.

And some of the acting seemed kinda off. Volstagg had what could have had a great You Shall Not Pass moment, but his lines were delivered like he's responding to a questionnaire. A lot of the characters were like that. What gives?

Saw Thor: Dark World. 7/10. It was entertaining and it had its moments, but it needed a rewrite. Badly.

Then it's not a 7/10. That would be more in line with 4/10. 7/10 is considered to be "above average" and teetering on "good". An opinion from someone who has rated over 7,400 films, TV shows (including episodes), documentaries, short subject, video games, and pornography combined.

:wink:

Quote

First off, I hate all the humans in this movie. There was no real point in having Earth be a part of this story anyway. Stupid love triangle was stupid. And they basically turned her (I don't care enough about her to bother learning her name) into a living macguffin, which was horrible, but a million times better than watching her try to date some poor schmuck. And frankly, the whole damn science team was physically painful to watch. The cell phone reception scene alone made me facepalm so hard, let alone the weaponized portals. These characters actually distracted from the story, which easily could've been just about the Asgardians and the Dark Elves.

And speaking of the Dark Elves, I actually really liked them. Their ships are cool. Those implosion grenades are cool. Their Black Rage powerup crystal thingies are cool. Their armor is cool. Those creepy masks are creepy. And their motivation is only mildly cliched - they don't do evil for evil's sake, don't want to conquer Earth or anything (in fact, they don't give two craps about the Earth, which makes their presence on Earth really puzzling) - they just want to unmake existence and return it to primordial chaos. Now there's a goal I can get behind. And best of all, they're led by the 9th Doctor. Awesome.

I also really liked the Asgardians. The part where Loki "dies" was great. Their dynamic was great, let's see more of that. But there were two things I really didn't like about them - Thor is apparently quite the trickster himself, which really threw me for a loop as it didn't seem to fit with this characterization at all. He's a stern, duty-bound warrior with all the subtlety of a 2x4. He's very much like his weapon - blunt, powerful, and very straightforward. This is the kind of guy who not only does not use deceit, but looks down on it. The second thing is Loki's offscreen coup d'etat. Wtf.

And some of the acting seemed kinda off. Volstagg had what could have had a great You Shall Not Pass moment, but his lines were delivered like he's responding to a questionnaire. A lot of the characters were like that. What gives?

Eh, it was alright. I like the aesthetic. i would like to see a super hero movie that uses it. But the story is about a whiny twentysomething who doesn't know how to handle his love life. So it's a universal story, I guess. It's just trite, is all. I didn't enjoy it.

But as I said, I would like to see a super hero movie with this aesthetic and until recently, director Edgar Wright was set to make Ant-Man. I can only conjecture that he was planning to do just that with Ant-Man and Marvel nixed it because this someone goofy, overblown look wouldn't fit with the rest of the Marvel movie. If that's true, it's a shame but understandable. Also if true, hopefully Wright won't give up on the idea and make a super hero movie with this kind of energy and excitement. There are plenty of public domain super heroes these days. So why not dust one of them off and have real fun without the bollocks of continuity?

Yeah, I tend to 8/10 everything that I don't hate. Apologies. Yeah, realistically, it's more like 5/10. It's basically a badly executed good movie.

I actually understand what you mean. I like movies in general, so I tend to score them higher than what they deserve. But for accurate comparisons there should be as many 1/10 movies as there are 10/10 movies, and most movies would rank somewhere in the middle like a standard Bell curve. But if someone were to give a really average flick a deserved score of 5/10 around here, it would give the impression that the movie just plain sucked. If you give a movie an 8/10, someone would be sure to ask, "8/10?" What was so bad about that movie?"

We could use a new scoring system in the forum. You would have to be honest:

I walked out of the theater half way through in utter disgustMovie was OK, but I slept through a lot of itMovie held my attention, and I didn't go to the lobby for popcornMovie was so good, I cried and made a fool of myself in the theaterorMovie was so funny, I pissed my pantsorOn the way out of the theater, I kept pestering strangers with how I loved the movie more than anything else in the world, until people started telling me to get a grip on myself and quit acting like a possessed Pollyanna.

Out of the 7400+ ratings I have at imdb.com I've given 103 movies 10/10 and 6 movies 1/10 (used to be seven but I recently rerated "Surf Nazis Must Die (1987)" 3/10 based on the performance of Gail Neely who really is the only person worth watching in the entire film).

I've rated 24 films 2/10, and 89 films 3/10. So, if you can do the math on the progression (I can't) and it may rest between me mainly rating films 6/10-7/10.

Silent films aren't really my thing, and I almost didn't watch this but then it said it was only 3 minutes long, so I did. Very entertaining short film. Good special effects, for 1896, and I guess it could be considered "horror" since it's apparently about a vampire.

I was wondering how far back you would go. You sure have been on an "old" movies binge lately.

I read about it on imdb and found it on YouTube. But, I love 1930s films, so, most of my ratings of classic films may stem mostly from that decade.

However, that 3 minute film is now the oldest film I've seen. Before was a French film from 1902 that's considered the first science fiction film: Le voyage dans la lune (1902) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000417/).

Yeah. Orson Welles was the "up and coming" but Joseph Cotten does all the work. Good example of film noir.

M (1931) an early Peter Lorre film directed by Fritz Lang in Germany. About a child murderer and how the police enlist the underworld to find the murderer, then betray them. Good film if you can find it.

M (1931) an early Peter Lorre film directed by Fritz Lang in Germany. About a child murderer and how the police enlist the underworld to find the murderer, then betray them. Good film if you can find it.

I have "M" -- great film. Got it in a "Family" pack. That is not a "family" film.

On the other... fuck, that was hard to watch through. Military flicks like that, especially one's based on true stories, get a lot harder to watch the more family and friends you have who are foot soldiers. Add ontop of that I have seen more blood and guts from idiots than I like and it makes it almost too unpleasant to watch :\.

Overall it was a really good movie, but I really regret watching it... made me feel like shit.

This ones gotten a lot of really bad reviews and some good ones. My personal take on it is that its a okay movie. The biggest complaint people had about this movie was how it changed the character of maleficent, from the one everyone knows from the original 1959 sleeping beauty, from the mistress of all evil, to a sympathetic character.

I kind of knew what the theme of this movie was going towards just from the trailers, after all there was no way you could make a movie about maleficent and not have her be the main star of the story. Something people forgot about the original sleeping beauty was just how fucking boring the prince and aurora was in it, and the real stars were the good fairies and maleficent.

In this retelling, it is essentially rewriting the character, but it also gave more depth to her on why she is the way she is, how she isn't evil so much as a woman scorned. It made the king in this movie into the real villain, it gave a whole lesson of the cruelty of mankind. What this movie actually did was something the animated didn't, and was give more character to aurora, she's still the buttery sweet princess, but she actually comes off as that instead of a cardboard character.The good fairies are just near pointless editions to the story, but it gives more time to other characters because of this.

And yes, biggest spoiler, i liked the fact maleficent made a bond with aurora, becoming her fairy godmother and she being the one to remove the curse, because one thing that pissed me off about the original was how the whole 'true loves first kiss' came from a guy who only had known her for a day or so, so in this adaptation his kiss didn't do shit, while maleficent, who grew up taking care of aurora, almost raising her and loving her like a daughter, actually did love her in the end because it was more genuine then the animated movie made it.

Its not perfect, there are a few things here and there that could have been improved upon, but overall I liked this movie, I liked this retelling of the character, because it would be been a seriously predicable movie if it followed it script and plot of the original.

Trashed by most critics, I thought it was less raunchy and more funny than I expected. I don't usually laugh out loud in theaters at Hollywood jokes. I usually find myself admitting that they might be kind of clever, but not funny enough to make me laugh. I laughed out loud several times. It was the first Matinee of the day, and the audience was small, maybe 30 or 40 people. I heard lots of other people laughing, both men and women. As a comedy, it met my standards, if not the critics. I might even go to an 8/10

The people under the stairs. Wes Craven.Why is there adult language in what otherwise appears to be a kiddy movie? Who is this aimed at? What kind of half assed story is this? Ooh that Marcellus guy from Pulp Fiction.

The people under the stairs. Wes Craven.Why is there adult language in what otherwise appears to be a kiddy movie? Who is this aimed at? What kind of half assed story is this? Ooh that Marcellus guy from Pulp Fiction.

13 Sins.. Some fucked up cell phone game for a fortune.. Much better than I thought. You have to accomplish 13 tasks to win and they get more illegal and gruesome as the game progresses.. Starts with eating a fly, but gets into murder and worse..

Junk science, but entertaining and fun. Silly, but never boring. The action starts as the movie starts; very little buildup... right into the action. SJ kicks some serious Korean gangster ass. Plus the first half takes place in Taipei, where I live. I recognized most of the locations. In fact, one scene was shot across the street from my friend's apartment!

The Ante. 1/100 Hilariously stupid murder plot. Some poor slob is framed for a murder he didn't do, but this is so bad you'll laugh all the way through at the bad acting and directing, but the cinematography is actually pretty good.It's one you just can't look away from it's that bad.

I wouldn't place this on par with Little Big Man, or Forest Gump, but if you like such witty history-tickling stories, this is still good fun. I think the bulk of the humor lies in the anatagonists being ruthlessly powerless against the obnoxious luck of the 100 years old opportunist Allan, and the merry band of friends he surrounds himself with (elephant included). Allan's a guy who seems more like a force of nature to reckon with, than a character to relate to, and there lies the movie's weak spot... a protagonist so roboticly self-absorbed that even 99 laps around the sun can't make him sympathatic.

Innocent Voices. 9/10.. A 10 year old boy in El Salvador has to decide between joining the Salvadoran army or joining the peasant resistance gorillas. Good flick based on true story. At the time the Salvadoran army took 11 year old boys to fight in the war that lasted 12 years and was US backed.

Little Moth (Chinese subtitles) 8/10 On Netflix. If you want a good reason to think the world sucks shit watch it. About an impoverished couple who buy a disabled 11 year old girl with plans of making her beg on the streets for them, but plans don't work out and the girl needs her legs amputated.. Fuck, I'm really glad I don't live in China.

Billy Jack. 5/10 Made in 1970. Watched this movie with short hair while wearing my Navy peacoat in an east coast theater full of hippies. the whitest white guy on planet earth playing a half-breed native American who is adept at karate, natch. Short squat guy with a taller skinny Korean stunt double. Shit gets kicked, punched, lots of bad slo mo; hot hippie chicks getting felt up, hippies and indians getting beat up by bigoted rednecks. Best seen while high, preferably on Peyote. Unfortunately I wasn't.

What was even weirder is that I was probably the only person in the theater who had ever even met an indian or knew anything about their culture. And all I got was dirty looks.

But Sharknado is not a B movie. A B Movie is when they try to make a good movie but go utterly wrong somewhere, usually due to the budget. Sharknado was made to intentionally be bad. I find the lack of sincerity is such product to be unpalatable.

hmm I was always told movies like Sharknado or any movies that SYFY makes is consider a B movie or a movie that goes straight to cable or DVD.

Used to be, but now the cheapo studios, especially the Asylum which makes the Sharknado movies have since become hip to the idea that there is a market for truly stupid ideas for movies. Sort of like how Snakes On a Plane got made and shit like that. It sullies it knowing that they are making shit on purpose instead of because that's the best they can do. Like whenever Bon Jovi puts out a new album.

But Sharknado is not a B movie. A B Movie is when they try to make a good movie but go utterly wrong somewhere, usually due to the budget. Sharknado was made to intentionally be bad. I find the lack of sincerity is such product to be unpalatable.

B movies are low budget films. That's all they are. If one extrapolates the cost of an average A movie ($50-$150 million) compared to an independent film such as the Sharknado series, and most any other film showcased on SYFY, it would classify as a B movie.

Guardians of the Galaxy Not sure what to give it. I'll say 6/10. Maybe 7/10

I've seen the coming attractions about 5 times at the theater and it looked like it would be pretty bad. Yet it's getting good reviews from critics, so I went. Actually, it's not a bad movie. There are a few very funny moments, and it's a fair superhero spoof, much much better than I thought it would be. Basically, a group of galactic misfit criminals band together to make sure some thing one of them stole (I'm not sure what it was or what it was supposed to do) would not fall into the wrong hands and result in the end of the Galaxy. That's the plot, but obviously to get from that simple point A to point B, they have all kinds of encounters along the way with various characters more nefarious then themselves.

Some of the incidents are so pointless and absurd that they are breathtakingly funny, although most of the movie I would describe as just cute. It was worth the price of admission, but I can't say my life will be any richer for it.

something with two blacks guys, one a cop the other a wanna-be, supposed to be a comedy, had some laughs, a couple guffaws, and it got me from a pistachio ice cream on a sugar cone to bed.....so......it was okay.

something with two blacks guys, one a cop the other a wanna-be, supposed to be a comedy, had some laughs, a couple guffaws, and it got me from a pistachio ice cream on a sugar cone to bed.....so......it was okay.

But then, they've apparently been using the character in the comics recently that also doesn't look like that old character I liked, so I guess I get to go fuck myself. Still would have liked to see the science fiction character on the screen, but that character was never popular. Hence why the change.

I'm not sure why I'm lukewarm over this movie. It could be the above. It's the same reason why I hate the last Superman movie, the last three Batman movies, and all the Spider-man movies. I still have to wait to see the actual character brought to life on screen.

But I think it's more than that. There were a couple times during the movie when something important was happening and they went into slow motion, which completely killed the emotional impact of the moment. It's not just this movie, either. I've been seeing this a lot lately. Holding on some significant moment for longer than they should and making me roll my eyes and dry heave at the over saccharine sentiment.

That certainly didn't help. Anything that takes me out of the movie lessens its entertainment value and that shit is anti-entertainment.

Other than that, I'm not sure why I'm meh about it. It may be it's just a meh story. Probably is. But it's not as bad as, say, the Star Wars prequels. I remember thinking that as I watched the large amount of CGI spaceship tomfoolery comparing it to the overly busy scenes, such as the opening space battle of in Revenge of the Sith where I didn't understand what was happening and did not care. In GotG, I did understand what was happening. I'm not sure why. Either those scenes where better staged or they had gotten me to care thanks to the little character moments earlier in the movie and thus paid closer attention. (I didn't pay attention during Revenge of the Sith because they had lost me two movies ago)

So I guess there's that working for the movie. "Not as shit as Revenge of the Sith" isn't exactly a glowing recommendation. But they'll get it anyway.

Guardians of the Galaxy. 8/10. Very good. Not perfect, but a surprisingly good showing.

Just as a heads-up, I loved the 2008 comic series. Dan Abnett is a great writer (but only when he feels like it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarines:_A_Warhammer_40,000_Movie)). If you haven't seen the 2008 series before watching the movie, I heartily recommend it. The main things I liked about it is that it was this ragtag group of misfits who by all rights shouldn't even have anything to do with each other, and they're staring down galactic threats together at the ass end of the universe knowing full well that they'll probably die in the process. And even if they succeed, their exploits will not be rewarded, thanked, or probably even noticed. They're not heroes like Superman or Captain America. They're not fighting for truth, justice, or the American way. They're fighting because all hell's breaking loose and there's simply no one else stepping up to the plate. They're a bunch of misfits turned Big Damn Heroes, and that's awesome.

Anyways, onward to the movie!

The titular characters were generally pretty faithful to the source material, which was great to see. (I was worried that they're just slap some paint on some schmuck and call it a day, but thankfully, they really tried to nail these characters, which isn't an easy task) Groot and Rocket Raccoon were especially true to character. I AM GROOT. XD Gamora was noticeably less so, and didn't sell me on her status as Deadliest Woman in the Galaxy. In the comics, she is a badass who hacks her way through mooks and does surprisingly well against even extremely powerful foes in hand-to-hand combat. She even has a sort of intimidating presence, not unlike Thanos, which makes a lot of sense considering her history. She's not a particularly pleasant person to be around, is what I'm getting it. The movie depiction really doesn't do her character justice. It's not right to have her say she's an assassin but never so much as show her attempting to assassinate anything. Show, don't tell, guys! Starlord was okay, he's slightly less of a goofball in the comic, but you do see that underneath all that, he is capable leader, which is good. I think Drax was a little more gruff and stoic in the comic, but I did like the unexpected humor from him in the movie, so I'll give that a pass. I was also really sold on Nebula. (Amy Pond ftw) And beink seeing Cosmo was great!

I liked it. I really did. That said, I do have a few nitpicks:

[spoiler]It really could've used at least one more teammate, like Quasar or Warlock or Nova. I figured Nova would be a shoe-in since the Nova corps feature heavily in the movie, but whatever.

The plot was bizarre with Ronan as the main villain and Drax's apparent beef with him is really strange. I would've gone a different way and had Thanos and Nebula as the main antagonists and had Ronan as a third party who is initially very belligerent towards the Guardians but eventually helps them against Thanos. Playing keep-away with the Infinity Gem would make more sense that way. Plus, it'd give Drax a more plausible reason to be eager to fight.

I have no idea why Nova Prime is apparently more of a head of state than a superhero. Or why Nova Corps members are helpless at zero Gs since the Nova Force famously allows for flight. Or why the (Space?) Gem is apparently just a planet-killing device instead of a facet of godhood. The climax was pretty damn bad (http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/152/d/0/anigif_by_niightmaremoon-d67ddwk.gif) with one hell of a tidy resolution (the Xandarians are surprisingly upbeat at the end considering a whole crapton of their compatriots just died) And Marvel's famous post-credits scene was awful and enraging in this movie. I WILL DO A MURDER ON THAT DUCK.

That "Everything Wrong With ____" series is going to have a very long list of sins when they review this movie.[/spoiler]

I honestly don't think this has anything to do with my atheism. Regardless of whether the movie got it's "historical accuracy" correct or not, I did not find it entertaining. I was caught between periods of boredom and moments of perplexing human behavior that did not seem real at all. It was also depressing. Depressing does not necessarily disqualify a movie as worthwhile, but I found this depressing without purpose.

My son and I went to Tammy. I'd give it a 7/10. Most of the funny parts were in the trailers you saw on TV or waiting for other movies. There wasn't much unexpected. There were some funny out takes during the ending credits. I would have enjoyed it more if the best parts hadn't already been shown so many times.

My son and I went to Tammy. I'd give it a 7/10. Most of the funny parts were in the trailers you saw on TV or waiting for other movies. There wasn't much unexpected. There were some funny out takes during the ending credits. I would have enjoyed it more if the best parts hadn't already been shown so many times.

I hate it when they show the ending in movies. Like you can't tell it's the ending.

Going to reserve my thoughts on Tammy (haven't seen it, don't plan on it) other than... I grew up with people who she is stereotyping so I can't find any humour in it, just patheticness at how accurate it most likely is. Would probably depress me too much to watch it.

So, I watched Star Wars: A New Hope for the first time in years... god, it felt so good.

10/10, even though there are so many plot holes and corny bits and somewhat lack-luster acting and... fuck, I just don't care. The mythology this one film created is simply too amazing, and watching it again was like seeing an old friend for the first time in years and years and years... it was just an amazing feeling.

Going to reserve my thoughts on Tammy (haven't seen it, don't plan on it) other than... I grew up with people who she is stereotyping so I can't find any humour in it, just patheticness at how accurate it most likely is. Would probably depress me too much to watch it.

So, I watched Star Wars: A New Hope for the first time in years... god, it felt so good.

10/10, even though there are so many plot holes and corny bits and somewhat lack-luster acting and... fuck, I just don't care. The mythology this one film created is simply too amazing, and watching it again was like seeing an old friend for the first time in years and years and years... it was just an amazing feeling.

The music was enjoyable, but I'm not sure there was much else about James Brown that is interesting enough to make a biography about. From what I could tell from the movie, James Brown was about a whole Hell of a lot of musical talent, but it pretty much ends there. As often happens, Hollywood produces copycat movies. This used a style and ideas that mirrors Jersey Boys. It's clearly a rip-off, but is carried by iconic songs that we all loved.

Jaws! The parts that originally scared me cracked me up this time. I'd never realized that the phrase "That's one bad hat, Harry" came from that movie. Fun and nostalgic to watch. I can't place a number rating on it.

Divergent. I didn't like it.I liked it.I didn't like it.I hated it. It was okay. Four out of 10. Get it?! *chuckles*

My computer apparently played my rental copy out of order (it was like Memento meets the Hunger Games), so if my review seems bizarre, you'll know where I'm coming from.

Here's the set-up. There's this dystopian city that basically has a caste system. But it's not hereditary, so people can join whatever caste they want. As you might imagine, being a farmer your whole life isn't a popular pick.

The part that really kills me that none of the characters have much personality. Seriously. Watch it and write down the characters' personality traits. Not their titles or positions or relations. There's barely anything there until practically the end of the movie, where all the character development apparently happens. They're like cardboard cut-outs. Macklemore was surprisingly good, all things considering.

No one has actual adult conversations. They just talk in these unnaturally brief grunts and exposition-speak. I've read comic books with meatier dialogue.

And given the pretty huge deathtoll (it's absurdly high, the life expectancy in this society must be in the upper 20s) and apparently horrendous waste of manpower (legions of homeless, a military that excels primarily at parkour, and a noticeable lack of people doing actual work) I'm having a really hard time believing that this is a society that has lasted more than a single generation.

But the part that really urks me is just how much they smash you over the head with the central theme over and over. "I'm a precious little snowflake. You can't put me in a box." Yeah, we know. We know. I don't see why that's such a problem anyways. A little flexibility never hurt anyone. And you're stuck in one caste regardless of your snowflake status, so I don't see how that could possibility threaten the social order.

Watched Wonderland last nite and its not upto much, tho if ur into that braindead lie back on the sofa with the eye's half shut type of movie experience then this is for you...Val Kilmer plays John Holmes (who, i hear you say ) he used to be the biggest Dick'' in Hollywoodland.......Shite storyline, some violence, and Kilmers bare arse..... 3/10

I watched Gravity recently and thought it was exciting to watch. I don't think I want to be an astronaut. It seemed to be accurate with its science more than most science fiction movies. Worth seeing.

I read an article that rated the "science" in Gravity. For the most part, it thought a large amount of the science was correct, but there were things that were wrong, and very wrong when you see them. I found one of the mistakes so glaring during the film that it shocked me out of my suspension of disbelief. You don't just jet pack over to the Russian Satellite, or the Chinese Satellite like you are peddling a bike over to the other side of the lake. This probably wouldn't have bothered me so much if the movie was not trying so hard to get space "right", because I can buy into a lot of Sci Fi stuff that is really far fetched.

Granted, the movie was widely acclaimed, even nominated for an Oscar, but it left me flat when I saw it in 3D at the theater. I rented it again when it came out on DVD, and I couldn't even watch the whole thing. It's odd how out of sinc my tastes are some times. It even bothers me a bit. LOL

Not a movie, but starting a M*A*S*H marathon since I have never actually really seen it.

At the time that series aired, there was nothing like it. I haven't watched an episode in years. It might seem a bit dated to me now, but I remember it being great fun. There is one character who doesn't appear very often, just a few times in the entire series. Colonel Flag. Watch for him. Every time he showed up, I knew it was going to be a great episode, and it was. But I have a strange sense of humor sometimes. It may not be like that for you.

Maybe less if your not a Woody Allen fan. It's not his finest work, and that score is a rating based not on movies in general, but only compared to the rest of Woody Allen's work. He does get in a few shots at religion, and I got a kick out of these two old black ladies sitting in front of me in the theater. I would have pegged them as church going Baptists, and who knows, maybe they were, but they would laugh and giggle every time the movie made fun of religion. Although the movie was much less critical of superstitious beliefs than members of this forum.

It's a fairly fresh idea, very well put together, and it definitely got me invested in the protagonist's plight. I liked it. I really did.

But it took a surprisingly long time to get to the titular games, some of the action was noticeably off (like grabbing a spear with your armpit bad), lots of missed opportunities (showing more about the society and its history, fleshing out the tribute characters and the mentor, etc) and lots of headscratchers (Everyone in district 12 is herded together to watch the Hunger Games that apparently goes on for days?! What's the significance of the mockingjay? What do the champs get? Why is District 12 whiter than Maine? Wouldn't the districts be called by actual names rather than numbers? How do you get your name in the hat 42 times today if they only pick tributes once a year? And seriously, how many times do people fall from considerable heights and apparently not seriously hurt themselves in this movie?) Also, I think there was some social commentary going on about the rich-poor divide but it was too subtle for me to get.

And finally, I definitely would've implemented the Hunger Games system differently:

[spoiler]All tributes are handled separately and not allowed to fraternize at all. That includes training. Otherwise, they could hurt each other, glean information about their opponents ahead of time, form emotional attachments or even alliances.

Immediately prior to the games, tributes are escorted by security and locked inside an elevator tube that is raised to the surface instead of tearful farewells in a pointless room culminating in a leisurely stroll onto the tube (there's a pretty good chance involuntary tributes wouldn't voluntarily leave the room, duh)

The elevators reach the surface and unlock simultaneously after a brief introduction.

Tribute starting locations are equidistant from each other around a central supply cache approximately 1 km away. There's also a meager supply cache immediately next to the tribute starting locations.

Unscalable walls surround the Hunger Games site and tributes are warned not to attempt to scale the walls or lethal force will be used against them.

Outside interference in a game in progress is forbidden. No sponsors. No airdrops. No nothing.

Games officials cannot change the rules of the game; the game continues until there is a sole victor. In the unlikely event that the victor is fatally wounded, the victor is celebrated posthumously. In the absurdly unlikely event that the last two tributes refuse to fight, the game goes on until only one is left alive, however long that is, and the victor is imprisoned and ultimately executed for cowardice and dereliction of duty.

The victor receives fame and fortune as well as a sizable grant for the district. Tributes would most likely be entirely voluntary at this point.

While I liked the Hunger Games too, I never understood the purpose of the games. Sure their purpose was described in the movie quite succinctly, but I was left with the nagging feeling: "Explained? Yes; Makes sense? Not really." I guess, it's one of those things you are not suppose to give thought to. It's just the way it was.

But the movie was surprisingly good, compared to the books, at least compared to the third book, which I borrowed from the Library because the second movie left me hanging. There's so much in the book that just doesn't seem plausible. In addition, while the books were written for young adults, they read like they had been written by one, probably one of high school age.

It seems to me that this is one of the exceptions, where the movie is better than the book. Just reading the third book, I would have never guessed that anyone would see any potential there for making a movie at all. I could see none. The only satisfaction I got was seeing how the series ended.

Yeah, the Games make no sense. The stated goal that they help people remember the past is bollocks and they certainly don't help bring the nation together. Quite the opposite. It gives districts a yearly reason to resent the Capitol.

There's also one part where Katniss is trapped in a tree by people who want to kill her. They shoot like two arrows at her and apparently give up and all go to sleep together. In the morning, she cuts down a beehive while they're sleeping and makes a break for it while they go all Wickerman.

And it's a stupid scene because it requires the antagonists to be absolute morons for that scene despite being competent elsewhere. A better scene would be where Katniss is trapped in a tree by people who want to kill her, sees the beehive and cuts it down in one quick chop, then makes a break for it. It's a minor change, but it would work so much better.

And that's why you let someone read/watch your work before going public. So stuff like that doesn't happen.

I went to see Sin City yesterday because I was hard up for a movie, and the pickings at the theaters have been slim for the last month. I was headed for theater 7 at the cineplex when I spied a water fountain 20 feet down the hall, and I was thirsty. The doors for Sin City and Lets be Cops were side by side, and after I got my drink of water, I accidently walked into Lets be Cops, which started at the same time. After sitting through a bunch of boring coming attractions, the movie started, and I thought it was just another coming attraction. But 5 minutes into the movie, I realized what I had done. My row was filled up, and I was sitting smack in the middle, so rather than create a disturbance, I decided to watch Lets be Cops.

So there I am sitting through a movie which gets a 15% rating from the professional critics at Rotten Tomatoes. Ordinarily, I would never choose a movie with such a low rating, even a low rating from professional critics. But you know what? Lets be Cops wasn't bad. It's wasn't great, but it's very much your average Hollywood comedy, maybe a bit above average.

Just saw Guardians, I loooooooved this movie. It did take a bit to get going at the start, but once it did it was awesome through and through. I loved the premise, how it didn't take itself seriously. It didn't have the old super hero crap about 'we don't kill we're heroes', they just killed, which was very satisfying. The characters were a lot of fun, with maybe only one of the main team members a little on the boring side, but the rest were great (<3 Groot), the villian was also a little disappointing but it in a way its good he was, as your see by the end. The special effects were really great too, Rocket felt very blended in with the rest of the cast (as did Groot <3)/

It was just a fun, cool, adrenaline pumping sci fi romp that felt like back in the 80s sci movies, I'd recommend it to anyone even if your not a comic book fan, you don't have to be to enjoy this.

So I was feeling nostalgic and stupid yesterday and I picked up The Black Hole and Tron on DVD.

It's been decades since I've seen Black Hole. I don't remember much about it. I do remember finding the climax a tad boring when they're trying to get to the smaller ship as the bigger ship is torn apart by the black hole and meteors and shit. It was kind of interesting up until that point as there was a mystery element with what Reinhardt was really up to and what really happened to the crew. But we learn all that and then spend the last twenty minutes going from set piece to set piece.

I do have to say, they are very lax with the laws of science. Vaccuum of space? Pressure suits? What are you? A pussy? I mean, wow. I wasn't expecting it to be the most scientifically accurate movie ever (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/neil-degrasse-tyson-the-black-hole_n_5458655.html), but the last time I saw that was in Thundercats and I didn't except it there, either.

As it stands, it's a collection of nice ideas that don't really gel. The characters are just kind of there. Not completely flat, but not exactly fleshed out, either. The mystery buoys things, as I have said, but interest drains instantly once that's cleared up. Then there's that ending.

Ho Lee Fuck Ing Shit

Not since 2001: A Space Odyssey has there been such a confounding ending. And that one at least can be explained. (http://www.kubrick2001.com/) This one really can't because they just threw in weird imagery of heaven and hell because it was 1979 and they were high at the time.

It is an oddity of a film from a time when Disney was desperate to do something because they were living on recycling their old animated films. This era brought us flicks like The Black Hole, Something Wicked This Way Comes and our next flick...

Tron

And fuck you.

I'll admit that I have a huge nostalgia boner for this movie that is large enough to have its own atmosphere. It was a movie about video games during a time when video games could be said to be my whole life. But it also has an aesthetic that cannot be reproduced no matter how hard you try.

I covered most of this movie when I saw Tron: Legacy a few months ago. It's not a great story or anything. But it works better than its sequel mostly because the sequel was more like a remake than a sequel, constantly referencing the original even when it wasn't appropriate. Also, young Jeff Bridges made a better lead than what's-his-name in Legacy. Bridges could play that kind of douchebag well and convey a likability that's hard to pull off. probably because he shows a vulnerability that modern douchenozzles refuse to show. He's hacking into the company mainframe to find evidence that he made those popular games that a co-worker stole and was subsequently promoted. He manages to make it clear that he is really hurt by this even though he's putting up a brave front.

It's also interesting to watch the movie from a filmmaking perspective. Some scenes were made before they decided that good guys should be blue and bad guys red (originally it was yellow and blue respectively). Bridges performance as Clu at the beginning is kind robotic because they didn't know how they should have the programs act.

I think at the end, there is just more to see here. Tron has the always fun Bridges doing his thing while Black Hole has Ernest Borgnine floating around on wires to make zero G, which sounds more fun than it actually is. That and Tron has the most beautiful production design ever.

I also popped in a few old movies yesturday, since I couldn't find anything interesting to download on steam.

One of the most comforting studios I enjoy watching movies from is hayao miyazaki and studio ghibli films (the ones he made). I'm just in love with his movies so much, I can even remember seeing laputa castle in the sky as a child and loving that movie so much, glad I have it in my collection.

But yeah anyway the one I watched yesturday was howls moving castle, I know this didn't get as ground breaking a write up as spirited away, which really is one of the best movies, but I've just for a soft spot for howls moving castle, the animation is incredible, the characters are enjoyable, the background of the movie is rich, and the depth of the main character is surprisingly relatable. I've watched it so many times aside from it not having the complete childlike innocence of some of his films, its still a well written story, and some of the finest animated sequences in any movie.

Also since i mentioned it earlier, Laputa castle in the sky is one of my all time favorite classic animated movies, the music in this movie is so good for its time, the plot is again deep and thought provoking, the characters are memorable and premise and mystery of laputa is just enchanting, I really recommend anyone who loves anime to just download or go out and buy this movie. Just listen to that end credits score, just gorgeous.

It's a fairly fresh idea, very well put together, and it definitely got me invested in the protagonist's plight. I liked it. I really did.

But it took a surprisingly long time to get to the titular games, some of the action was noticeably off (like grabbing a spear with your armpit bad), lots of missed opportunities (showing more about the society and its history, fleshing out the tribute characters and the mentor, etc) and lots of headscratchers (Everyone in district 12 is herded together to watch the Hunger Games that apparently goes on for days?! What's the significance of the mockingjay? What do the champs get? Why is District 12 whiter than Maine? Wouldn't the districts be called by actual names rather than numbers? How do you get your name in the hat 42 times today if they only pick tributes once a year? And seriously, how many times do people fall from considerable heights and apparently not seriously hurt themselves in this movie?) Also, I think there was some social commentary going on about the rich-poor divide but it was too subtle for me to get.

And finally, I definitely would've implemented the Hunger Games system differently:

[spoiler]All tributes are handled separately and not allowed to fraternize at all. That includes training. Otherwise, they could hurt each other, glean information about their opponents ahead of time, form emotional attachments or even alliances.

Immediately prior to the games, tributes are escorted by security and locked inside an elevator tube that is raised to the surface instead of tearful farewells in a pointless room culminating in a leisurely stroll onto the tube (there's a pretty good chance involuntary tributes wouldn't voluntarily leave the room, duh)

The elevators reach the surface and unlock simultaneously after a brief introduction.

Tribute starting locations are equidistant from each other around a central supply cache approximately 1 km away. There's also a meager supply cache immediately next to the tribute starting locations.

Unscalable walls surround the Hunger Games site and tributes are warned not to attempt to scale the walls or lethal force will be used against them.

Outside interference in a game in progress is forbidden. No sponsors. No airdrops. No nothing.

Games officials cannot change the rules of the game; the game continues until there is a sole victor. In the unlikely event that the victor is fatally wounded, the victor is celebrated posthumously. In the absurdly unlikely event that the last two tributes refuse to fight, the game goes on until only one is left alive, however long that is, and the victor is imprisoned and ultimately executed for cowardice and dereliction of duty.

The victor receives fame and fortune as well as a sizable grant for the district. Tributes would most likely be entirely voluntary at this point.

Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor.[/spoiler]

I saw it a while back... I would give it a 6/10 though. It's not really a fresh idea. In fact is a pretty blatant rip off of Battle Royale. I still enjoyed it, but it didn't live up to the hype everyone I know gave it.

So I finally saw Wreck-It Ralph. Kind of odd that it took me this long to see that one seeing as I'm a nut for classic video games and shit, but that's life.

On the whole, I was disappointed. I think the Lego Movie spoiled me already what with having Batman be a major supporting character. I think Wreck-it Ralph would have benefited from having a recognizable video game character do likewise, like maybe Q*bert follows Fix-It Felix Jr. through the story or something. I don't know. It would have elevated things a bit. But it's probably unfair to compare the two since Lego came out later. It just would make the inclusion of classic video game characters seem less like cameos and pop-culture references, which do not effect me the way they do others. Most people get that shock of recognition from seeing something they haven't seen in twenty years. I was playing Q*bert just the other day, so it's less of a shock for me.

However, the plot became surprisingly complex when Ralph must choose to betray a friend for their own good. And then even that turned out to be more than it seemed. that was good.

Less good was the needless H plot of the alien bug things taking over the game. I know they needed to raise the stakes, but that was a cheap way to do it. particularly since it was unconnected to the plot I mention above. I might have liked it better if the alien bugs had, I don't know, personality?

So the video game stuff was like pop culture references in a bad Shrek movie and the plot had some good parts and some bad. I'm not a fan.

It was never made clear enough to me what was going on. I think that was the writer's intended device. Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? Is the main bad guy really a bad guy or a good guy? You never really know. Add to that, I didn't understand exactly what the opposing factions were trying to accomplish. I had a general idea, but not enough to make something sensible out of all of it at the end of the movie. It felt like something was missing. People were doing things, even interesting things, but I was left without a sense of purpose. I read an in depth synopsis afterwards, and yes, it pretty much described what I thought I was watching, but I still keep asking myself, "Yeah, but why bother to even write this story?"

Phillip Seymour Hoffman did his usual job of solid acting, and managed to leave us with his credibility intact. Even though he has been widely acclaimed, he always seemed underrated to me. I guess you need to be better looking to get the kind of praise I think he deserves.

James Bond movies always drive me nuts. How come he's in Morocco now? Why is he suddenly in Rio? Now he's in Budapest! What's actually going on? And why does this one criminal mastermind think he can take over the world? I just go to Bond films for the babes.

It includes all the devices necessary in a good Christian Drama. A miracle happens. At first, no one believes the boy, until he relates some things about the family to his father. These things are supposedly things he could not know. The father struggles with it and accepts the boys story as real. Now everyone thinks the father has gone over the deep end, including his wife, and they want to fire him as minister of their church. The father becomes a martyr, but then the boy relates other things that get the doubters on board. Finally, the minister's wife believes while she is in tears over something the boy tells her about the family that he could not possibly know. Everyone joyously reunites in their newly deepened faith and they all become friends again. Throughout the movie there are many scenes of people praying by themselves and in groups. They are good Christians walking in God's path, but they are shown the light and reborn once again.

It includes all the devices necessary in a good Christian Drama. A miracle happens. At first, no one believes the boy, until he relates some things about the family to his father. These things are supposedly things he could not know. The father struggles with it and accepts the boys story as real. Now everyone thinks the father has gone over the deep end, including his wife, and they want to fire him as minister of their church. The father becomes a martyr, but then the boy relates other things that get the doubters on board. Finally, the minister's wife believes while she is in tears over something the boy tells her about the family that he could not possibly know. Everyone joyously reunites in their newly deepened faith and they all become friends again. Throughout the movie there are many scenes of people praying by themselves and in groups. They are good Christians walking in God's path, but they are shown the light and reborn once again.

Oh, and I forgot the most important part. At the end, when everyone is reuniting in friendship, his wife calls her husband aside and tells him they're having another baby. They do a tender Christian Kiss of agape love (or is it the other one? I can never remember which is which) as they enjoin in happiness, blessed with another miracle of life, for which they can thank Jesus.

Nebraska 9/10Great acting. The stylistic choices augment the story's atmosphere nicely. Crisp black and white with two mono-soundtracks (sound left, music right) rather than stereo. This is not a story about a victorious winner (the supposed trophy is a scam), but rather about a persistent loser who's granted one final indulgence as a reward for his persistence. It's one of those films that manages to be endearing through it's refusal to be bigger than life. For someone like me, who's a sucker for escapist spectacle, but likes variaty too, such movies make for a welcome change of pace.

Grudge Match 7/10The Raging Bull vs Rocky in a light dramady flavor. The sfx creating the illusion of younger versions of Stallone and DeNiro could've been done better, and the comedy's corney. But ultimately this film turns out to be a more worthy successor to Rocky than all it's sequels managed to be. Not omg you must see this, but definately worth wasting a rainy sunday afternoon on for shits and giggles.

Finally saw Maximum Overdrive, written and directed by Stephen King while he was doing some serious cocaine.

Holy shit, this movie is an insult. Hands down, the best character in the movie is the boy...because he keeps his fucking trap shut.

Let me tell you why I hate these characters.

Homicidal vehicles/machines:

1. Start off by killing whatever humans they can and fully intend to kill any that leave the gas station where the story takes place. Then, when the cars start running out of gas, they threaten (by car horn morse code) to........kill the humans if they don't get more. And the humans agree. Sure, why the hell not. I mean the machines also had a jeep with a machine-gun, and it could've said "Give me some more ammo or else I will kill you!"

2. So which is it? Do you want to kill humans or did you want gas? If you wanted gas, then wouldn't it have made more sense to PRETEND to be normal, so that the humans would give you gas BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING NORMAL?

3. If you wanted to kill the humans, why the hell are you taking so long to do it? At the end, we see the large vehicles easily destroy the building and cause it to explode. Why didn't you do that yesterday.

Billy and girlfriend who's name I don't care about:

1. They hook up and bone each other within hours of meeting each other. But Billy is the main character so we know he won't die due to having sex.

2. Billy agrees to give fuel to the homicidal trucks.

3. Billy fires a Law rocket launcher from the hip. Twice.

Bubba

1. Corrupt, fat prick who talks like he's drunk.

2. Fires rocket launcher from the hip. Three times.

3. Has a rocket launcher in the first place because....?

4. Taunts Billy about his criminal record when machines are going apeshit.

Curtis and Connie (married couple)

1. Connie doesn't shut the fuck up. As in ever. I hate horror movie characters that talk and talk and talk and don't DO ANYTHING.2. Curtis doesn't slap her for not shutting the fuck up or telling her to do something.

Blonde waitress and husband:

1. Blondie keeps screaming at the vehicles that "we created you!" She runs out twice screaming that, nearly getting run over the first time and getting shot by the machine-gun jeep.

2. Husband decides the best thing to do when a machine gun is tearing through the building is to stand up.

Assorted morons I don't care about:

1. Decide the smartest thing to do when a machine-gun is tearing through the building is to remain standing.

Baseball kid:

1. Is silent most of the movie and is pretty smart.2. Thank fucking Christ.3. See above.

Stephen King

1. Coked out of his mind while writing and directing this film.2. What the fuck Steve?!

UFO:

1. The credits begin by saying there was a fucking UFO outside Earth's atmosphere and nobody knew about it and it's not explored at all. Surprise! At least the Russians shot it down!2. What the fuck Steve?!

Minus infinity out of 10. If there are any homicidal aliens or trucks or both, we DESERVE IT for even being born in the same star system this movie was made.

Character study set in the world of organized crime. I'm becoming a Tom Hardy fan. There is something compelling about his acting, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. They used the extra time that would ordinarily be used up in car chase scenes to develop the plot.

I thought it was an interesting premise, but the movie doesn't even attempt to explain what it's own point is. It's obviously set up for a sequel, and the point may become clearer then. But I have to say I'm not anxious to see the sequel, because the first movie isn't interesting enough to go back for more. The maze itself is really cool, but beyond that there's not much. I'm enjoying the Hunger Games. I liked Divergent, even though it's hard to see the point of that movie too. But dystopian future movies for teenagers, with unrealistic and rather shallow plots requiring 3 or 4 trips to the theater over a 4 to 6 year period seem to be a big thing now. I think I'm getting bored with them. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that this current rage will not be as long lasting as the superhero genre, and many of the come lately films cashing in on the trend will die before their final sequel. We shall see.

Wow! A very engaging film, but totally incomprehensible. It recently hit Redbox. One of the stranger movies I've seen. It reminds me of a David Lynch film, except it's more futuristic. If you're into bizarre, this might be the movie of the decade... if you're into bizarre. If it's important that a movie makes sense, then skip this one. I thought it was great fun, but I'd be apprehensive about recommending it to anyone.

I just check the town of Matewan on the map, and the railroad does run through it. I don't know if it's the mainline, but I imagine all of those old coal mining towns looked the same.

I remember someone on this forum complaining about the fad of dystopian, young adult fiction. Here the plot is more post apocalyptic than dystopian. There's plenty of tension in being trapped in a maze and trying to figure out how to get out while avoiding the half-beast, half-machine monsters within it.

Of course, as it's part of a trilogy so the reveal as to why the boys are in the maze doesn't actually explain much of anything.

I'm a sucker for this variation of super hero. While not endowed with mysterious powers, he just a human, but indestructible. Sure, you understand that he's potentially vulnerable like anyone else, but he just kicks ass and always wins. And unlike traditional super heroes with special powers, he never meets an opponent that presents a challenge (Oddly, I don't like it when a superhero meets the inevitable super villain. Who says he has to have a foil? Hollywood? For me, that doesn't add any interest to the script). But the Equalizer just kicks ass and keeps going. Like Clark Kent, he's got an alter ego, but it's just him. Everyone else thinks he just a clerk in a hardware store. The movie lost momentum a couple of times, where I got a little bored.

Rain 1932 ..Sadie Thompson vs. The Puritans. Maxwell Anderson's screenplay of the W. Somerset Maugham story.Joan Crawford. Walter Huston, William Gargan Great flick and things don't turn out to spiffy for the puritan preacher.. Great old flick and Joan Crawford was hot in 1932..https://archive.org/details/rain1932Lots of soul saving of the ho Sadie and the preacher really screws the pooch in the end. Good flick for atheists..

Story of the unionization of West Virginia coal miners in the 1920s. It authentically captured the feel of a West Virginia coal mining town from what I can tell. I rode the Amtrak Cardinal through West Virginia a couple of years ago. And I have to wonder if I saw the actual coal mining town where this was filmed. There were several along the route, and I remember one in particular that looked just like the film. It appeared to be abandoned, with closed storefronts facing the railroad right of way instead of a main street.

The Book of Eli. -1 stars.Ultimate love/hate.Loved the first half--it hooked me because of my addiction to Fallout 3 and Fallout:New Vegas. The post nuclear world is perfect (well, represented as it should be). Great action movie with the ultimate action hero in Denzil Washington. Then the second half just fucked that all up! The 'book' of course is the bible--braille no less. The bad guys want it and good old god enhanced denzil won't give it up. Turns out it the only one left and he has it all memorized in his head so that when he gets to SF there is a guy who has a huge book collection and all he lacks is a bible. So, not even a world wide nuclear war can wipe the hideous book off the face of the world. Highly disappointed and repulsed by the ending.

What can I say, but it's kind of like every other David Fincher directed movie. Well photographed. Well acted. Haunting score. Impressive story. But somehow unsatisfying and I do not know why.

It's difficult to discuss why without spoiling the movie. Much of it hinges on a midway twist that had been spoiled for me, which may be why I'm not liking this movie all that much.

but then, I also didn't like Rosewhatever Pike who plays the titular gone girl, whom we see in flashbacks. Some praised her acting ability. I didn't like her. I didn't believe she was a person. Much less this person.

The ending is kind of dissatisfying, too. I get what they were trying to do with the masks people wear and the roles they play when living their own fucking lives, but I don't think it was done very well.

More I think about it, the less I like it. I don't think that can be blamed on knowing the midpoint twist. It's not a very smart twist. It just seems smart because movies and novels have been so dumb lately.

I think this film has way too much and/or to harsh criticism. I knew before I saw it that it had the 10% of the brain fallacy and avoided it for a while because of that. This weekend, we desperately needed to see a fun movie, so we picked this anyway, going in with low expectations for the plot and just hoping for good entertainment.

Not too far into the movie it is pretty apparent to me that it was taking a more fantasy-superhero route than a sci-fi one, so I was able to overlook the silly science. At any rate, it is no sillier (or more scientifically inaccurate) than Spiderman getting his abilities being bitten by a genetically altered radioactive super spider, or about any other superhero premise, so I don't get all the hate.

The movie is fun, visually great, and I actually like the blend of silly and serious it delivers. I didn't even know until I came home that the director also made The Fifth Element, which has a like mixture of silly and serious, visual eye candy, super-hero-like action fun food for thought. It certainly has touches of Akira as well (particularly the second half), which my hubby noticed before I did.

Go in thinking of this as a superhero genre movie with a side of wacky philosophy (ala Fifth Element), and you will most likely love it. Go in expecting a serious sci-fi and you will not be pleased.

I found this movie highly interesting. I was always waiting to see what would unfold next. It's a drama about treachery. Like Antithesis, I think a different ending would have been more satisfying, but the ending did work, even though I'm not sure it reflected normal human behavior. It might, not mine I don't think, but maybe for other people. I would describe this movie as fun. Even the tension was fun. I found myself laughing out loud at the cleverness of the treacherous behavior involved, even when it was very diabolical.

Wow! A very engaging film, but totally incomprehensible. It recently hit Redbox. One of the stranger movies I've seen. It reminds me of a David Lynch film, except it's more futuristic. If you're into bizarre, this might be the movie of the decade... if you're into bizarre. If it's important that a movie makes sense, then skip this one. I thought it was great fun, but I'd be apprehensive about recommending it to anyone.

I just check the town of Matewan on the map, and the railroad does run through it. I don't know if it's the mainline, but I imagine all of those old coal mining towns looked the same.

Which The Signal did you watch, the 2007 or the 2014 one?We just picked up the 2014 one and it is pretty weird, but not incomprehensible. Kind of vaguely reminded me of Dark City. I would give the 2014 version a 7/10. It's a bit slow in places, but weird and interesting.

Recently re-watched Godzilla, Mothra, and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack. Just rolls off the tongue.

Out of all the Godzilla films, this is easily in my top 5. The plot gets a bit silly in a couple places, and a few things won't make sense if you're not familiar with Japanese mythology, but overall it's well-paced and succeeds at building up anticipation for the fight scenes; which are amazing, by the way, best in the franchise in my opinion.

I just saw Hercules, and it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd heard. From what I can tell the main beef must have been that the trailers were misleading about what kind of movie it was...more of a 'man behind the myth' thing than straight up 'mythic adventure' like Immortals or Wrath of the Titans.

Recently re-watched Godzilla, Mothra, and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack. Just rolls off the tongue.

Out of all the Godzilla films, this is easily in my top 5. The plot gets a bit silly in a couple places, and a few things won't make sense if you're not familiar with Japanese mythology, but overall it's well-paced and succeeds at building up anticipation for the fight scenes; which are amazing, by the way, best in the franchise in my opinion.

Mothra--that jiggled some memories. That was my daughters favorite movie when she was 4 thru 8 years of age. Just loved to watch it--and as kids do, over and over again. :)

Which The Signal did you watch, the 2007 or the 2014 one?We just picked up the 2014 one and it is pretty weird, but not incomprehensible. Kind of vaguely reminded me of Dark City. I would give the 2014 version a 7/10. It's a bit slow in places, but weird and interesting.

It was the 2014 one. You can bet I'll watch it again. Maybe it will make more sense the second time around, although I wouldn't necessarily be watching it to make more sense out of it. I just think it's a cool movie. Dark City is also one of my favorites. I have that one in my private collection, and I couldn't tell you how many times I've watched it. Dark City is comprehensible to me, however. Along those lines, have you seen The Thirteenth Floor? Another older favorite for me.

This movie was dedicated to the star, Paul Walker. I think maybe he's the guy that got killed a few months back in some high speed car accident in a city someplace.

I think the actors were potentially good, but the script stunk. The heroes were too fast, too strong, too cool, and too heavy on the macho comments to be anything near realistic. Considering I mentioned before how much I like the theme where the heroes are almost indestructible, it's odd this fell so short. It reached too far and came off as written by a jr. high school student. While the target audience was maybe the late teens and 20 somethings, I think it would probably be more entertaining to 6 and 7 year olds. I'm serious about that.

And then there was the cat fight scene; One gal in leather, and the other in an outfit vaguely reminiscent of a catholic school girl. They fight it out with chains and whips, but no skin ever gets shown for fear of shocking the ten and under crowd who wouldn't understand the point of a cat fight in a movie, anyway. It's kiddie porn at its finest. I think 3/10 is generous.

The premise of this looked interesting. It explains (or invents) the origin of Dracula. As with superhero movies, I always enjoy the details of the origin. And Dracula is a superhero in this film. He is the a count, which we all know, but his kingdom is under attack, and he sells his soul to the Devil to gain the power to save his kingdom. And you know the rest. Although parts of the movie seemed kind of pointless, most of it was passable entertainment.

It's been a week now since I've seen Gone Girl and I am now certain it is not a good movie. A week later and that film has barely even crossed my mind, except at how disappointed I was in it. When it's a good movie, I get obsessed. I think about the characters and wonder what happens to them next. I didn't do that, despite the ending being kind of open and supposed to be leaving you wondering what happens next.

I just didn't care.

I don't know these characters. I wouldn't recognize them if I met them on the street. And I sure as hell do not want to know what happens next.

And yet, this movie is popular. Now it is. In ten years, people will be wondering what they were thinking, if they ever think about Gone Girl ever again, and they probably won't.

The last time I've been obsessed with a movie was Mulholland Drive, but the obsession was more from being at a complete loss to make sense out of it, although I do think it's an excellent film. Most people just don't like it.

I just watched this move, and thought it had a really good plot that had you guessing all the way to the ending.

Quote

Basic is a 2003 American/German mystery-thriller film directed by John McTiernan and starring John Travolta, Connie Nielsen and Samuel L. Jackson. The film is McTiernan's final film to date. In Panama, a team of Army Ranger trainees and their instructor, Master Sergeant Nathan West, engage in a training exercise: navigate the jungle in hurricane conditions using live fire to hit targets before rendezvousing at a bunker.

I just watched this move, and thought it had a really good plot that had you guessing all the way to the ending.

I didn't like Basic because John Travolta, period.

Rush. 8/10. Better than I thought. The race scenes are very well done and Christian Hemsworth is a better actor than I thought him to be. Think of it as a love story with edge of your seat excitement and explosions.

Basic has a "twist" ending that you more or less see coming, but Travolta is playing pretty much the same character he plays in Swordfish, the dominant, commanding know it all. I don't like him, his acting or the characters he portrays. For that matter, Swordfish and Basic have similar plot twists throughout. At least Swordfish had Halle Berry.

It was the 2014 one. You can bet I'll watch it again. Maybe it will make more sense the second time around, although I wouldn't necessarily be watching it to make more sense out of it. I just think it's a cool movie. Dark City is also one of my favorites. I have that one in my private collection, and I couldn't tell you how many times I've watched it. Dark City is comprehensible to me, however. Along those lines, have you seen The Thirteenth Floor? Another older favorite for me.

Nope, I've never seen the Thirteenth Floor (that I recall anyway). I looked it up and it does look interesting! I will have to check it out.

As to The Signal, I think the last 5 or 10 minutes are where the movie either makes sense or it doesn't. I guess I just interpreted it in a way to force it to make sense, but maybe it really doesn't, lol. Kind of makes me want to rewatch it, too.

As to The Signal, I think the last 5 or 10 minutes are where the movie either makes sense or it doesn't. I guess I just interpreted it in a way to force it to make sense, but maybe it really doesn't, lol. Kind of makes me want to rewatch it, too.

LOL That's what I was thinking. Yeah, you can invent your own ending, but you have to kind of plumb the depths of your creativity to do it.

The Thirteenth Floor is 16 years old, but very good. But the state of computers in 1998 when the movie was made required those clunky monitors of the time. Here these guys are writing software for highly advanced virtual reality programs, but they appear to be doing it all from DOS prompts. That part is both nostalgic and jarring at the same time. But the rest of the movie is convincing, at least as far as Sci Fi goes.

I missed this when it was at the theater, but it looks good. I'm looking forward to it. It reminds me of an older movie I love, Rustler's Rhapsody, funny as Hell. I just looked up "Rustler's Rhapsody" on rotten tomatoes. Critics gave it an 18. Audience gave it an 87. I give it a 9.5.

Sometimes I got a little bored. But the tank battles were gripping. I don't know if they looked like real tank battles. I've never seen a tank battle, but they were breathtaking. And I'm not talking about the usual Hollywood massive explosions with fire balls. The tracer fire in the evening was both pretty and frightening at the same time. It added an eerie dimension to the film. I've never seen anything in a movie quite like it.

Saw Gone Girl with dad last Sunday. It's twist came so early, and I was expecting it to be over at that point. Then there's still an hour of a half of movie to go. All the same, it was well done and tense, which is how a mystery should be. But...it loses it's label as a mystery, partly because the twist comes so early.

While the premise takes Sci Fi beyond the normally unbelievable, the story is unique and done well enough to deserve a look. In fact, the plot is no more unbelievable than a superhero movie. It's more like it falls outside the Hollywood rules that insure big box office turnouts. I'm drawn to those kinds of movies, so I guess I was predisposed to like this one. Critics liked it too, although I'm not sure any of these opinions matter.

Live Die Repeat.. not bad. Think Ground hog day but as a drama and getting whacked a couple dozen times. Kinda funny in the way that happens. The aliens are a little overboard, but hey so is the premise. Good evening flick if nothing else is on and you have a six pack and a bag of pop-corn you need to get rid of.

Live Die Repeat.. not bad. Think Ground hog day but as a drama and getting whacked a couple dozen times. Kinda funny in the way that happens. The aliens are a little overboard, but hey so is the premise. Good evening flick if nothing else is on and you have a six pack and a bag of pop-corn you need to get rid of.

I enjoyed that at the theater. I'll watch it again when it shows up at Redbox.

Live Die Repeat.. not bad. Think Ground hog day but as a drama and getting whacked a couple dozen times. Kinda funny in the way that happens. The aliens are a little overboard, but hey so is the premise. Good evening flick if nothing else is on and you have a six pack and a bag of pop-corn you need to get rid of.

I find it amusing that they retitled "Edge of Tomorrow" "Live Die Repeat." I don't know of many movies that had their title changed so fast like that.

I usually don't like foodie movies where so much time is devoted to scenes where people act like they are having orgasms from tasting some indescribably fancy food preparations. But this movie had a plot, not entirely predictable, in that you didn't know how Hollywood was going to bring about the desired ending we all knew was coming. Very good cast with some big names, and it held my interest when I was expecting a snorer. I thought the characters were likeable people. I could connect with them.

I usually don't like foodie movies where so much time is devoted to scenes where people act like they are having orgasms from tasting some indescribably fancy food preparations. But this movie had a plot, not entirely predictable, in that you didn't know how Hollywood was going to bring about the desired ending we all knew was coming. Very good cast with some big names, and it held my interest when I was expecting a snorer. I thought the characters were likeable people. I could connect with them.

Chef... Man..You'd watch a movie based on the phone book wouldn't you? :lol:

Chef... Man..You'd watch a movie based on the phone book wouldn't you? :lol:

I guess I watch a lot of movies. I enjoy a wide variety of them and for a lot of different reasons, but I frequently turn them off 20 minutes into the film. Sometimes I walk out of theaters. So I am discriminating, but I admit my tastes differ from most people.

Having said that:

Night Crawler 8/10

This is one creepy movie, but not Halloween creepy. It deals with slimy human bottom feeders. You won't like anyone in this film. The most redeemable characters play minor roles. They are about as important to the film as Batman's girlfriend. I don't think they are even given names. But it will keep your attention. It's one of those, I can't look away situations.

made the mistake of watching Hercules..... hoy boy.......wait for a wintry night and you're stuck in the house with no food or drink, half way through you will be desperate you may just kill yourself to avoid any more agony.

I thought Insterstellar was pretty good, but not spectacular. Didn't really care for the ending. But lots better than Inception to me. I really did not care for Inception, despite how many people loved it.

Let's Make Money-- If everything in the movie is true and I have no reason to believe it isn't then the global economy is about 1000 times worse off than we're lead to believe, perhaps millions of times worse.

Lucy. 4/10 - cheap gimmicky story and vapid ideas about Science‚ĄĘ and Philosophy‚ĄĘ. A 12-year old kid could come up with better analogies they tried to push through in that movie about reality and knowledge, really rustled my jimmies. Well, at least there were a bunch of ridiculous special effects and colours.

Predestination.I don't even know how to rate this movie! I enjoyed it and I think it had a lot of fun intentionally not making sense and screwing with the audience, so based on that I'll give it an 8 out of 10. IF you are one of the people who sees this and thinks that there is a gaping plot hole, you might not like it, but personally, I think it's intentional on the part of the writers, kind of making fun of time travel movies and having a good ole time doing it.

Spoilers:[spoiler]A time travel agent who is hunting a time traveling terrorist goes out of his way to set himself up with himself (prior to a sex change) in order to impregnate himself with himself, so he can become the time traveling terrorist he is hunting and ultimately kill himself. [/spoiler]

Predestination.I don't even know how to rate this movie! I enjoyed it and I think it had a lot of fun intentionally not making sense and screwing with the audience, so based on that I'll give it an 8 out of 10. IF you are one of the people who sees this and thinks that there is a gaping plot hole, you might not like it, but personally, I think it's intentional on the part of the writers, kind of making fun of time travel movies and having a good ole time doing it.

Spoilers:[spoiler]A time travel agent who is hunting a time traveling terrorist goes out of his way to set himself up with himself (prior to a sex change) in order to impregnate himself with himself, so he can become the time traveling terrorist he is hunting and ultimately kill himself. [/spoiler]

Could be better, IMO. The angle of this movie was that it is a mystery to unfold, to find out who the bomber is, wrecking chaos, but if you follow the very first minutes, it becomes obvious who it is; at least it did to me.

No kidding its not a great movie. The jokes were not very funny. The dialog, particularly by the Transformers, was pretty corny, stilted. Yet, for some reason, I still found it more enjoyable than I should In other words, it wasn't as bad to me as it is to most other people. I'll give it a 6/10.

Edge of TomorrowIt is well known to be a Groundhog Day meets Sci-Fi movie. And, well, I just couldn't help but keep thinking about GD every time Cruise's character dies and comes back. Its a fun movie. But forgettable. 6.5/10.

Evilenko 2004. Andrei Evilenko murdered 55 women and children in the Kiev area back in the 80s and was allegedly executed although rumor has it that westerners offered $$$$ to Russia to turn him over to them for unknown reasons. The murders were very gruesome and he reportedly also ate several.

If you have the Roku service you can watch it on The Grindhouse Channel

Evilenko 2004. Andrei Evilenko murdered 55 women and children in the Kiev area back in the 80s and was allegedly executed although rumor has it that westerners offered $$$$ to Russia to turn him over to them for unknown reasons. The murders were very gruesome and he reportedly also ate several.

If you have the Roku service you can watch it on The Grindhouse Channel

Pretty good movie if you like grindhouse kind of stuff.

I wonder if this is one I watched on Amazon Prime a month ago. It was a riveting story, and if not the same movie, it's probably the same killer.

If only I had the time to see a movie. I want to see Interstellar. No idea if it's still showing. I will sneak away from my craazy peak-season work schedule to see The Hobbit, which comes out next week.

I just watched the Wicker Man, about a man from the mainland of Scotland that is a police officer looking for a missing girl, he is a Christian, and the people on the Island are Pagans, and they sacrifice him at the end. A good example of how magical thinking is insane, and results in man's inhumanity to man. :wall: Solitary

I watched a more recent version staring Nicolas Cage a year ago. I didn't know the story. I found it shocking.

I know it is suppose to be a complete disgrace to the original.

The original... finished it earlier, and yeah it was crazy. So many questions... was the main "villain" (Sir Christopher Lee) actually a pagan or just exploiting them? Was he even a villain, really? Was the Christian even suppose to be taken as a "good guy" or just a character caught in the story? And holy crap, the plot twist doe.

November man with whatshisface....meh...mildly entertaining....about a 6.

I saw it at the theater. I had about the same response. Peirce is getting older and his career seems to have peaked, but I still go to his movies because I think he's a good actor, even if his roles aren't as compelling as they used to be.

Manages to be a pop culture critique and an anti-fascist propaganda film disguised as a fun movie for all ages. Will Farrell plays an evil corporate overlord and it is up to a construction worker, Nyan cat, ninja girl, Batman, hippie Morgan Freeman and robot pirate to stop him. The most bizarre yet entertaining movie I've seen in a while.

The first time I've ever taken notice of Reese Witherspoon as more than just shallow fluff. The movie is not great, but it held my interest. I would have preferred fewer flashbacks about her tormented past and dysfunctional family, which actually tended to dominate the movie. I would have preferred more scenery and hiking adventures.

At the time that series aired, there was nothing like it. I haven't watched an episode in years. It might seem a bit dated to me now, but I remember it being great fun. There is one character who doesn't appear very often, just a few times in the entire series. Colonel Flag. Watch for him. Every time he showed up, I knew it was going to be a great episode, and it was. But I have a strange sense of humor sometimes. It may not be like that for you.

Just saw the Hobbit, good movie, though a bit drawn out. I enjoyed it greatly, but it really felt at times like it was just making the trilogy a biut longer, I guess that's what the criticism was about. Still glad I saw it, 8/10!

teenage mutant ninja turtles‚Ä¶..not of my own choice‚Ä¶but there I was‚Ä¶so it was kinda fun‚Ä¶my daughter enjoyed it which is sadly more reflective of her intellect. Like the cartoon I still cannot explain the need for masks, as if taking them off would somehow make them less noticeable in the general public eh? But of course it IS a cartoon based on‚Ä¶‚Ä¶..eh‚Ä¶‚Ä¶..magic..so there ya go. I would give it a 3. Okay on a night when you are not interested in anything thought provoking and most certainly one I will never watch again, once was a quite enough.

Just saw Wild. I guess Witherspoon is an actress--I was a bit surprised. To have a movie made about hiking means it has to be good--surprised again, for it was good. It was interesting to note that the most dangerous thing she faced on the hike (1200 miles in the wild) was a pair of male hunters. I'd give it an 8.5/10. See it...............

Ripley Scott's Exodus god of Kings was in a word spectacular. Liked the tsunami scene and those vistas of spectacular rock formations alone. I was dreading some faith proselytizing Bible epic which is why I put off seeing it for so long but was not as bad as I feared. Ridley Scott said it was based on a tsunami that was generated by and earthquake off the coast of Italy about 3000 years ago but is also could well of been due the Minoan eruption a few hundred years earlier. Such food for thought for Bible skeptics like myself. I would rate it 6 out of 10. The 4 deducted for those ‚Äúpyramid building scenes‚ÄĚ which did not belong to that period at all. BTW I met a few fundy Christians who were very pissed off by this movie, perhaps it was the 12 year old "kid God" which I found very humorous. What did they expect some old guy with a long white beard peering behind the clouds with a big booming voice!

Just saw Wild. I guess Witherspoon is an actress--I was a bit surprised. To have a movie made about hiking means it has to be good--surprised again, for it was good. It was interesting to note that the most dangerous thing she faced on the hike (1200 miles in the wild) was a pair of male hunters. I'd give it an 8.5/10. See it...............

Have you ever seen her in Walk The Line? She was extremely great in that.

I read Wild. I liked the story and disliked the main character, she made a long series of bad decisions. I hear they left out the part about her having an abortion from the movie.

Have you ever seen her in Walk The Line? She was extremely great in that.

I read Wild. I liked the story and disliked the main character, she made a long series of bad decisions. I hear they left out the part about her having an abortion from the movie.

No, did not see Walk The Line. I don't see a large number of movies, so going to Wild was to mainly keep my wife company. She read the book and was very excited about going to the movie. I was glad that I went; it was well done and the acting was good. The abortion was in the movie. And as it was portrayed in the movie, it was the right choice on her part. Yes, she made many, many bad choices, in that they were self-destructive. And because of that, she destroyed her relationships as well. Yet, she had something inside her that finally saw that--she bottomed out and reached for something positive. She found the hike. That would not have worked for me, but I realize that it could work for someone else--different strokes for different folks. I think she paid for her bad decisions--and overcoming so many was quite an accomplishment. I was happy for her by the end of the movie. I still rate it an 8.5 to 9. Which is remarkable, since the kind of movie I like is the Hunger Games type.

My daughter gives it a 10/10 and says the only movie she's ever liked more is How to Train your Dragon (and maybe HtTYD2). I thought it was full of awesome, but will give it a 9/10 because I thought it lost pacing a bit near the end. I 100% recommend it to everyone though, unless you really hate Disney just on principal or something.

Last day of Christmas vacation for us, and I wanted to make it special, this movie seen in a theater was perfect!

The government is either run by complete idiots or they're in it For the Evulz. They do so much stuff to provoke the districts for seemingly no benefit for them. Let's storm towns and burn their crap because...I dunno. Let's do (presumably televised) summary executions on the spot and right in front of crowds. Let's deny the districts basic services so we can feast and vomit and feast some more! I mean, there's inequality in the our world, but this takes it to a whole new level. We're talking futuristic airplanes and forcefields and holograms and all that jazz, but food production is apparently too difficult. And just so pointlessly cruel on top of it all. Do you want a rebellion? Because that's how you get a rebellion. And Jeez, the Prez is taking governing advice from the GM?! Get that man a Cabinet, stat! Next thing you know, the Tributes will be manipulating this guy, saying that they'll eat poison berries if he doesn't do what they want. Can you imagine?

And the worst thing is it's not even internally consistent. A major part of the first movie was that the Hunger Games victors are set for life. Dragging them back seems incredibly deceitful.

As for the eponymous games, I'm glad they went a different way with that. It would have been a drag if it was just a repeat of the last movie. But it strikes me as strange how it always becomes a team-based game instead the expected free-for-all.

My quips during the airing:

"That Tribute (the white guy with the beard) looks pretty cool, can't wait to see more of him!""Let's all stumble and fall while running away from the lethal gas. Oh yeah, carry the old lady. That'll work out well.""Wouldn't it be funny if the old lady wins the games? Like all smeared with blood?""No monkey I've ever heard of is that aggressive. Stealing stuff, I can understand. But these guys are on the warpath."*Katniss wakes up with an oxygen mask on* "We interrupt this movie to bring you Resident Evil."

I actually sort of liked the ending. I also really liked how Katniss's escort to the Capitol (Effie something or another) actually feels sympathetic for the team and, like Haymitch, apparently doesn't like her role in this sick system. But this movie was still a trainwreck. 5/10. 6/10 tops.

That was perhaps the most scathing, while not inaccurate, review of Hunger Games I've ever read. While I had to suspend my sense of reality way beyond what is usually required by science fiction, I have still enjoyed them so far. Although #2 lost a lot of interest for me. I believe I read somewhere that the books are being promoted as a "young adult" series. I think this means written text without any pictures or illustrations in an extra large font that renders less than 100 words per page. But mostly, I think it means that the content is much more violent than what is usually associated with books of a 5th grade reading level.

In fact, that was my impression when I read the last two books of the series. I'm not sure if I would call them poorly written, or simply written in a way that does not tax young readers. The dialogue was especially simplistic. It was pretty much just: Then he said, "... bla bla," and then she said, "... bla bla."

Frankly, given the quality of the writing, I'm amazed that Hollywood managed to turn the books into a block buster series. I think the movies target mostly late teens, while the books targeted elementary level children, so I wouldn't expect the plot lines to make a lot more sense than basic readers for schools, "Dick and Jane Go Postal."

That was perhaps the most scathing, while not inaccurate, review of Hunger Games I've ever read. While I had to suspend my sense of reality way beyond what is usually required by science fiction, I have still enjoyed them so far. Although #2 lost a lot of interest for me. I believe I read somewhere that the books are being promoted as a "young adult" series. I think this means written text without any pictures or illustrations in an extra large font that renders less than 100 words per page. But mostly, I think it means that the content is much more violent than what is usually associated with books of a 5th grade reading level.

In fact, that was my impression when I read the last two books of the series. I'm not sure if I would call them poorly written, or simply written in a way that does not tax young readers. The dialogue was especially simplistic. It was pretty much just: Then he said, "... bla bla," and then she said, "... bla bla."

Frankly, given the quality of the writing, I'm amazed that Hollywood managed to turn the books into a block buster series. I think the movies target mostly late teens, while the books targeted elementary level children, so I wouldn't expect the plot lines to make a lot more sense than basic readers for schools, "Dick and Jane Go Postal."

Yes, the Hunger Games books are in the Young Adult section of the bookstore. I found that I like that 'level' of writing--although I don't really understand what that actually means. I've now read several more books of the post-apocalyptic type. I enjoyed them all. Then tackled a book named The Last Ship--a very adult level book. It is right in my wheelhouse! This is about the last surface ship in the world left after a true world wide nuclear war. There is one more ship, but it is a sub. On The Beach, move over! Well, not so fast. This writer of adult fiction (an actual naval officer) was so verbose I got to the middle of the book and stopped reading. He would belabor each and every point over and over again. He took two paragraphs for what a sentence or two would do better.

I also like Orson Scott Card quite well. His books are in the regular sci-fi section. So, I guess when all is said and done, we simply like what we like. And one never knows until one gets into any particular book if one will like it or not.

Yes, the Hunger Games books are in the Young Adult section of the bookstore. I found that I like that 'level' of writing--although I don't really understand what that actually means. I've now read several more books of the post-apocalyptic type. I enjoyed them all. Then tackled a book named The Last Ship--a very adult level book. It is right in my wheelhouse! This is about the last surface ship in the world left after a true world wide nuclear war. There is one more ship, but it is a sub. On The Beach, move over! Well, not so fast. This writer of adult fiction (an actual naval officer) was so verbose I got to the middle of the book and stopped reading. He would belabor each and every point over and over again. He took two paragraphs for what a sentence or two would do better.

I also like Orson Scott Card quite well. His books are in the regular sci-fi section. So, I guess when all is said and done, we simply like what we like. And one never knows until one gets into any particular book if one will like it or not.

Don't ever read Game of Thrones then! The characters and plot lines are excellent, but Martin can take an entire page to describe what another writer would probably do in a sentence or two. Particularly clothing and food. I don't mind it most of the time, I actually enjoy reading a description so vivid I can really visualize the people in my head, and almost smell their dinner. But that kind of verbosity isn't for everyone.

The Hunger Games wasn't too bad. The movies are worse than the books, though the books are fairly simplistic. I really didn't like book 2, and felt that most of book 3 was better, although by the end it felt extremely contrived.

I'm so tired of YA dystopian books. I loved Enders Game and I don't mind others, like City of Ember and Hunger Games, but it's overrunning the industry, or feels like it! Maze Runner and ~gag, choke~ Divergent. Man, Divergent was so bad, I have NO idea how it was selected to become a movie, or even how it made it to print!

Saw "The Desolation of Smaug" again. I really enjoy the LOTR works, they are just so rich in color and epicness that you fall right into the fantasy and a talking dragon...why...perfectly normal! Why shouldn't a dragon be able to talk? Always a fun time and looking forward to the next one. I rate all of the LOTR and Hobbits at 9.5.

Don't ever read Game of Thrones then! The characters and plot lines are excellent, but Martin can take an entire page to describe what another writer would probably do in a sentence or two. Particularly clothing and food. I don't mind it most of the time, I actually enjoy reading a description so vivid I can really visualize the people in my head, and almost smell their dinner. But that kind of verbosity isn't for everyone.

The Hunger Games wasn't too bad. The movies are worse than the books, though the books are fairly simplistic. I really didn't like book 2, and felt that most of book 3 was better, although by the end it felt extremely contrived.

I'm so tired of YA dystopian books. I loved Enders Game and I don't mind others, like City of Ember and Hunger Games, but it's overrunning the industry, or feels like it! Maze Runner and ~gag, choke~ Divergent. Man, Divergent was so bad, I have NO idea how it was selected to become a movie, or even how it made it to print!

I have actually been toying with the idea of reading the Game of Thrones and the others in the series. I too, like good description--but in the Stephen King vein. If it is done well, describing one's surroundings gives the story and world depth--I like depth. But the author of The Last Ship was not only verbose but his choice of vocabulary was obnoxious--words that were very obscure, or outdated. His editor must have been very lazy to let that pass. So, I will probably go to my local Barnes and Nobel bookstore (since that is the only one we have), grab The Game of Thrones, buy a cup of coffee and sit and read for an hour or so. If I like it, I'll start it. If not--I'll do something else.

Saw "The Desolation of Smaug" again. I really enjoy the LOTR works, they are just so rich in color and epicness that you fall right into the fantasy and a talking dragon...why...perfectly normal! Why shouldn't a dragon be able to talk? Always a fun time and looking forward to the next one. I rate all of the LOTR and Hobbits at 9.5.

Just saw the new one and really, really enjoyed it. I know alot of LotR purists and whatnot have criticised the Hobbit Trilogy, but I loved every minute of it. The third is just as good imo as the first two, so I don't think you will be disappointed by it.

Saving Christmas by Kirk Cameron. What a masterpiece of cinema!! Probably the best movie I've seen since that magnum opus The Room! Through superb acting, clever camera angles, flawless logical reasoning and a complex plot filled with unexpected twists and turns, Cameron actually convinced me to give up my evil, god-hating, monkey-ancestor-having atheistic ways and bow the knee before Christ Jesus himself! Praise the LORD! The BIBBLE is true!!!!

That was perhaps the most scathing, while not inaccurate, review of Hunger Games I've ever read.

Thank you. It's partially that the second one felt too much like the first one. Going to the Capitol was cool and all the first time when it was all shiny and new. But the second time is just boring and forgettable. And the really weird thing is the uprising sorta just pops up out of nowhere. Katniss is apparently a symbol for it, despite initially being completely compliant with the government. Didn't make a whole lot of sense.

I also didn't really like the villain. It was extremely strange to hear him practically obsess about her. "I want her dead!" Then do it! You're the dictator, you can make it happen. I'll get my gun and we'll shoot her together. Sheesh, Dr Evil was a more competent villain.

I sort of like Katniss, but her love triangle was just nauseating. And she's probably the only halfway decently developed character. Seriously. Describe the main characters of the Hunger Games franchise without using any of their titles or relationships. Katniss is courageous, selfless, defiant, compassionate, and as of the second film, slightly traumatized. Her romantic interest is...oh right, no relationships. That guy brings absolutely nothing else to the table. Peeta is...I honestly don't know. Haymitch is drunk and hates himself. The dictator is cruel. Not exactly wowing me in the character department, either.

The action's good and all, but damn, the buildup to it is such a drag that I'm not really emotionally invested at all. Maybe I'm just an overly harsh critic, but it didn't seem like the film brought much to the table.

Don't ever read Game of Thrones then! The characters and plot lines are excellent, but Martin can take an entire page to describe what another writer would probably do in a sentence or two. Particularly clothing and food. I don't mind it most of the time, I actually enjoy reading a description so vivid I can really visualize the people in my head, and almost smell their dinner. But that kind of verbosity isn't for everyone.

Yeah, I was torn between my love of painting with words (the descriptions really help visualize the scene and also give you a sense of the hugely divergent lifestyles of the rich and the poor) and my irritation with extraneous and trivial details. Depending on the book, you could cut out anywhere from 50 to 100 pages and not notice the difference.

So, I will probably go to my local Barnes and Nobel bookstore (since that is the only one we have), grab The Game of Thrones, buy a cup of coffee and sit and read for an hour or so. If I like it, I'll start it. If not--I'll do something else.

Definitely worth a shot. A Game of Thrones is the best-paced one of the bunch, imho. Further in the series, and the author starts to ramble.

Just be ready for a peppering of medieval jargon like nameday (similar to, but not the same as birthday), on the morrow (tomorrow), craven (coward), hauberk (chainmail shirt), gorget (armor protecting the neck), mare (adult female horse), smallclothes (underwear), etc.

And it's practically impossible to remember all the characters, so writing down key characters and what's going on with them is a good idea.

Saving Christmas by Kirk Cameron. What a masterpiece of cinema!! Probably the best movie I've seen since that magnum opus The Room! Through superb acting, clever camera angles, flawless logical reasoning and a complex plot filled with unexpected twists and turns, Cameron actually convinced me to give up my evil, god-hating, monkey-ancestor-having atheistic ways and bow the knee before Christ Jesus himself! Praise the LORD! The BIBBLE is true!!!!

Obviously I know you are being sarcastic, but, did you by any chance get stuck actually watching it? Apparently it is so bad even evangelical Christians say it sucks.

Quantum Leap fans take note, this stars a very young Dean Stockwell as the titular werewolf.

The plot is about 40% retread of the original Wolf Man with the other 70% a lame attempt at a comedy-horror hybrid. It's mostly dull or painful when the President tries to deliver a "humorous" speech or something, but it really comes alive when Stockwell is in the wolf make up. He really fucking goes for it here, acting like a dog and shit. One scene where he attacks a woman in a phone booth is worth watching this pile alone, so try to find clips on youtube of that.

Overall, it's silly and dull only made watchable by its star and his gusto performance when in wolf form. Unfortunately, he's rarely in wolf form. Would have been better if he was a wolf more often.

An extraordinary film overall. The special effects are so awesome you don't even notice them most of the time. The plot is wonderfully interesting, and though you find yourself thinking of many authors and other films throughough, non of them were like rip offs, the overarching plot was very thoughtful and well done.

First time I have watched it (I didn't start watching movies till I was about 21-22, that's why I'm so late on all these great films)...

The artistic style... the themes... the the soundtrack... oh god, just everything about this movie is great. Tarantino is such a master of suspense. The fight between Lucy Lu and The Bride... ok, not the most action packed (especially after the fight scene it followed [the blue room sequence was beautiful!]), but man... is good. Lu's back story as an anime-style, the suspense in the first fight...

Selma - What an incredible film. I believe this movie should win Best Picture.

My only problem with the movie, and this is a historical gripe rather than a knock on the movie (it probably helped the movie) is how LBJ is shown as being an opponent... LBJ was a supporter of MLK and was one of the few in Washington who asked him to keep on doing what he was doing. I think it's one more piece of media where LBJ is slandered, which is sad since he was one of our better presidents.

But again, that is nitpicking at the historical accuracy rather than the quality of the movie itself as a medium of entertainment and conveying an idea.

X-Men: Days of Future Past (or as I call it, X-Men: Second Class) 7/10

I know I'm going to catch hell for this, but I was pretty disappointed in this one. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't horrible, but there were a lot of things that didn't really work in this one.

I liked the doomed future scenario and Kitty Pryde's team under attack, but we could/should have seen more of things falling apart, so there's more of an impact when they do the whole Timetraveler fix gambit. Starting the movie right at the last stand is a nice in medias res, but at the expense of tension. That and it's hard to feel for people we have never seen before. I also have no idea why we have to see the doomed future slowly doom even after Logan has been sent back in time. When you send someone back in time, your timeline effectively ceases to exist. I realize that in this movie, timetravel doesn't work exactly that way somehow, but whatever. Honestly, I wouldn't have shown any more of the future timeline after Logan goes back because it doesn't matter anymore.

I didn't like most of the first half of the movie at all. If it had stopped at the assassination attempt, I honestly would've given this a 5/10 or a 4/10. We see Logan adjust to the 1970s, which was about as entertaining as it sounds. It was really bizarre seeing Logan as Mr. Calm and Collected and Xavier as the who doesn't have his act together. Then they gather the gang. I freakin' loved Quicksilver, especially his slo-mo takedown scene. Pure awesomesauce. Mystique was great as always. And Peter Dinklage was good, but I don't think Trask's character was very accurately represented here. This guy had a personal hatred for mutants and feared for the future of humanity, so he made it his life's goal to protect humanity from mutants. It's a very twisted sense of heroism. Instead, we got someone apparently with no grudge who, bizarrely, even expresses admiration of mutants. *shrugs*

I also didn't understand why Magneto couldn't have just used the sentinels to terrorize the humans after taking them over. As long as you're not standing right next to them, everyone would just assume that the sentinels had gone haywire, and in the aftermath, Trask and the Sentinel project would've withered on the vine. And while it wouldn't exactly bring about human-mutant peace, it would set back anti-mutant initiatives, which would be a big win for mutants. Instead, he stands right next to them so it's obvious that it's his doing, shouts at the camera that mutants are a threat, and tries to assassinate the President. It's like he's deliberately trying to get mutants wiped off the face of the Earth.

And speaking of squandered opportunities, Mystique could have sabotaged the hell out of stuff like this instead of operating as an assassin. She can masquerade as anyone. She could ruin this guy's career - hell, his whole life if she wanted without firing a shot. She could touch off a series of gaffes and scandals that could ruin anti-mutant organizations. Instead, she's focused on killing just a single guy. And honestly, killing him after he's already developed sentinels doesn't really accomplish anything, so what's the point?

And Logan gets to have this crowning moment of awesome where he saves the day. Or drowns. Whichever.

Bottom line, the action scenes are really good, but the story is lackluster and the characters are bland; it's really hard to feel for any of them. The movie felt very restrained and ultimately, boring for much of its runtime. I honestly think that First Class was better. Or even the X-men cartoon two-parter of the same name, which is really sad because I was really hyped for this movie. I badly wanted it to be freakin' amazing and it was just okay. Its saving grace was that it retconned X-Men 3 out of existence. Hallelujah.

You know, after reviewing this thread, I've realized that I consistently rate movies lower than most of you guys. Stuff that mostly gets a 10/10 or 9/10 from the crowd gets an 8/10 or a 7/10 from me. I almost never give a movie a 9/10 or 10/10, so on the rare occasions that I highly praise something, I really mean it!

I also overanalyze stuff, which tends to magnify small flaws. That and I might just be really hard to please. Dammit, I'm going to give a movie a 9/10 one of these days, it just has to earn it!

I've realized that I consistently rate movies lower than most of you guys. Stuff that mostly gets a 10/10 or 9/10 from the crowd gets an 8/10 or a 7/10 from me. I almost never give a movie a 9/10 or 10/10, so on the rare occasions that I highly praise something, I really mean it!

I think a lot of people, myself included, often use a rating scale that that seems to range from 7/10 to 10/10, so ten simply means above average. When 0 to 10 is used, a score of 10 would be rare indeed, and would occur about as often as a 1 (a score of 1 has probably shown up once or twice here, whereas a 10 is quite frequent).

It's not like only 1 out of every 10 movies normally would reach a score of 10 either. Movie scores would normally form a bell curve, with the vast majority hovering around 5, with 1 and 10 representing rare extremes, maybe on the order of one out of a hundred or less.

I guess I've had to forego my love of the bell curve in order to communicate with others about movies, which obviously I really like doing. I remember giving a 6/10 to a movie long ago and being asked why I didn't like it, which was not what I was saying.

However, I wouldn't expect the reviews here to represent a normal bell curve either. The ratings will be skewed high, because people avoid going to stinkers or things that have no appeal for them at all, so you won't see many ones and twos. Still it seems to me that a score of 10 would be reserved for truly extraordinary movies. In my opinion, most Academy Award winners wouldn't even come close to a ten. I think of a ten as being a movie that shows up once every 5 years, movies that you want to watch several times over the course of the next 20 years, and such movies are rare. Think in terms of your favorite top 5 movies of all time. Those are the 10s, IMO.

But, I've adapted to the ratings here, and there is a lot of personal taste involved. When I see a 9/10, it suggests I should probably consider seeing that movie, but it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to think it's extraordinary.

Saw Boondocks Saint's. The part where the hitman turns out to be the boy's father and joins them in their spree I was like "Okay?"

Otherwise, it was bloody good fun. 4 out of 5.

My dad keeps talking about how he's got God's Not Dead, and Heaven's For Real. Obviously, I don't have much interest in that, but once he gets that out of his system, there's Fight Club, which I got on Blue Ray from my brothers at Alpha Sigma Phi during a Secret Santa thing.

I think a lot of people, myself included, often use a rating scale that that seems to range from 7/10 to 10/10, so ten simply means above average. When 0 to 10 is used, a score of 10 would be rare indeed, and would occur about as often as a 1 (a score of 1 has probably shown up once or twice here, whereas a 10 is quite frequent).

For me, 5/10 is average, 7/10 is good but flawed, 9/10 is amazing, 10/10 is essentially perfect, and 1/10 indicates that I hated the movie with every fiber of my being. Like you said, it is skewed towards the upper numbers because I simply won't see movies that I think are horrible. But I actually have given a 1/10 to Battlefield Earth. That movie was awful in every conceivable way. And the first and third LOTR movies are 9/10 with me, The Two Towers is one of my extremely few 10/10s.

My only problem with the movie, and this is a historical gripe rather than a knock on the movie (it probably helped the movie) is how LBJ is shown as being an opponent... LBJ was a supporter of MLK and was one of the few in Washington who asked him to keep on doing what he was doing. I think it's one more piece of media where LBJ is slandered, which is sad since he was one of our better presidents.

But again, that is nitpicking at the historical accuracy rather than the quality of the movie itself as a medium of entertainment and conveying an idea.

I'm not sure I agree with what you've said. LBJ was on MLK's side in general. But like a politician, he had parts where he diverged. From my understanding this is accurate. He didn't do anything in Selma, and MLK met with him often.

I recently saw Into the Woods...it's a story about four fairy tales combined together with a twist. I loved it. I give it a 10/10. If you like musicals, you'll like this. A lot of singing, but it just worked. :)

You know, after reviewing this thread, I've realized that I consistently rate movies lower than most of you guys. Stuff that mostly gets a 10/10 or 9/10 from the crowd gets an 8/10 or a 7/10 from me. I almost never give a movie a 9/10 or 10/10, so on the rare occasions that I highly praise something, I really mean it!

I also overanalyze stuff, which tends to magnify small flaws. That and I might just be really hard to please. Dammit, I'm going to give a movie a 9/10 one of these days, it just has to earn it!

Also, I used to be funny. :(

Can you list three movies (all time) you would score 10/10?I can list a bunch. I realize that perhaps these are just movies I really like for one reason or another and may not technically deserve a 10.

Blade runner 10/10. I've seen this movie dozens of times and I've owned it in almost every format. Lots of hidden storyline.Forbidden Planet 10/10. Classic Sci Fi. I started watching it when we got our first TV. TV was black and white but it didn't matter. I actually have the Movie poster framed in my rec room.The shawshank redemption 10/10. Just blew me away. I think I cheered out loud when he emerged from the tunnel of shit.

I recently saw Into the Woods...it's a story about four fairy tales combined together with a twist. I loved it. I give it a 10/10. If you like musicals, you'll like this. A lot of singing, but it just worked. :)

Definitely. I caught it when it came out on cable TV after the theaters had their shot at it. I'd never heard of it at the time. It was just something I blundered onto. Later, I was excitedly telling my sister from Chicago about this great movie I had found. Of course she knew about it, and said they were holding discussion groups around the Chicago area devoted to Blade Runner. That movie must be 30 or 40 years old, but it still deserves respect and still holds up to any of today's films.

You know, after reviewing this thread, I've realized that I consistently rate movies lower than most of you guys. Stuff that mostly gets a 10/10 or 9/10 from the crowd gets an 8/10 or a 7/10 from me. I almost never give a movie a 9/10 or 10/10, so on the rare occasions that I highly praise something, I really mean it!

I also overanalyze stuff, which tends to magnify small flaws. That and I might just be really hard to please. Dammit, I'm going to give a movie a 9/10 one of these days, it just has to earn it!

I don't know what to think about this movie. What I can say is I didn't like it much. I'm not saying it's a bad movie by any means. I'm just saying I'm unlikely to willingly watch it again anytime soon.

I should probably start off saying I don't give a shit about the politics involved because I do not give a shit about politics, period. I went to see Malcolm X in the theaters because it was a Spike Lee movie and I hadn't seen one yet and decided to watch that one since it was the new one at the time. At the end of that movie, a woman-- one of the few other people at the screening-- applauded excitedly. This reaction puzzles me to this day because Malcolm X wasn't an exciting movie. But, she was black, so maybe I just don't understand.

I am all about story, character, performance, the art of film making. I don't care whose life is being portrayed so long as it's being made into a good movie.

I can't say with certainty what the movie gets wrong. As far as I can see, it doesn't really do anything wrong. I caught a glimpse of artistic flourishes here and there. (I gave a golf clap to a church bombing. I haven't seen a better use of shock in quite some time) But mostly I was kind of bored. It's kind of talky and dull in stretches. And I don't know why. Usually, it's because I can't follow what's going on and stuff. But I could follow what was going on. It may be just drawn out. Scenes going on for just a touch too long to be effective.

Wreck it Ralph. Score is --wŐäŐėŐärŐäÕĖŐäeŐäŐÉŐľŐäcŐäÕäŐäkŐäŐ≠ŐäeŐäÕüŐädŐäŐ™Őä--

Thoroughly entertaining. The whole video game characters living outside of the game thing has been done before *coughRebootcough* but it was a really touching story about outcasts finding their place in the world and not being defined by your label. Remember, just because you're the bad guy, doesn't mean you have to be the bad guy. Unless you're Shao Kahn. I mean that guy has a skull as a helmet.

I recently saw The Grand Budapest Hotel.I don't know what score to give it because while I can see the talent involved in making this film I just couldn't get into it. If I had to give it score based on how much I enjoyed it I'd only give it a 6/10

American Sniper. I really don't understand the flap over this. Yes, its a war story with hero's and villains, but also shows the horror of war, the brutal cost of it. I do not see this as anti-islamic as much as a war movie. Pretty darn good, but only because it is so emotionally charged, they really spent less time with the idea of being a sniper and more being a soldier which was probably better because the portrayal of a sniper only would probably come off as really heartless. Not a bad film, probably will never watch it again because stuff like that I have no interest in seeing again. I give it 7.5

American Sniper. I really don't understand the flap over this. Yes, its a war story with hero's and villains, but also shows the horror of war, the brutal cost of it. I do not see this as anti-islamic as much as a war movie. Pretty darn good, but only because it is so emotionally charged, they really spent less time with the idea of being a sniper and more being a soldier which was probably better because the portrayal of a sniper only would probably come off as really heartless. Not a bad film, probably will never watch it again because stuff like that I have no interest in seeing again. I give it 7.5

I think the flap is not over the movie as much as it is just over the flap. It seems to generate feelings about both of two opposing socio-political view points, depending on an individual's personal point of view. But that's the thing about war, any war, not just a war involving Arabs or Islam. There are always opposing points of view on going into war and the perceived motives behind it. Governments vilify the enemy, as do large cross sections of the voters, while some voters think the whole thing is misguided, based on some sort of bias. That this movie is seen in two different lights by viewers pretty much reflects the way a population views wars.

Was Kyle a hero or an asshole? That's not really the point. He was who he was. He was worshiped by some, and vilified by others. It's almost a testimony to Eastwood's story telling abilities that he creates such a mixed bag of responses.

Take the end of the movie where Kyle's funeral paints a picture of a hero. Does Eastwood tip his hand and show his personal bias when he includes this in the movie? We can't know. Whether Kyle was a hero or not, the fact remains that he had a following who thought he was. While that pisses off a lot of people, I don't think it's a reason to fault the movie as a having a flawed perspective.

This is one weird movie. It's too weird for me to rate. Did I like it? I don't know. It's engaging and revolting at the same time. It's a sick fantasy, but you can't stop watching it. I give it a 10 for creating an unusually strong visceral response, but beyond that I dunno what to think.

This is one weird movie. It's too weird for me to rate. Did I like it? I don't know. It's engaging and revolting at the same time. It's a sick fantasy, but you can't stop watching it. I give it a 10 for creating an unusually strong visceral response, but beyond that I dunno what to think.

That movie started as a joke on Kevin Smith's podcast. He then took the joke way too far and actually made the movie.

It's rare that I so enjoy a movie this much. It's back again at Red Box, which mostly specializes in new releases, so others must have liked it too, although probably not as much as I did. I love this film. I can't remember it being at the theaters, and I read one review that totally trashed it. While tastes vary in film, I am stunned how anyone could not enjoy this movie.

I was completely absorbed by this story about a group of street magicians who team up and are propelled onto the national stage with the help of a mystery benefactor. While their magic tricks are wonderful, there is a clever agenda taking place behind their lavish performances. Even they are unaware of their ultimate purpose until the end.

I've watched it four times, and I'm still putting together those little things I missed along the way. Fascinating!

I just watched "Lucy". I stopped it when whats-his-face said to the audience that we only use 10% of our brain and told the wife it was BS, but she actually thought they were telling the truth. But overall the movie was engaging, but the woo was a little too much. About a 3 as far as movie, but a 6 for enjoyed watching it.

I just watched "Lucy"... About a 3 as far as movie, but a 6 for enjoyed watching it.

Enjoyment is what I weigh the most. I think critics weigh things like probable general appeal, the inclusion of some currently important social issue, or some insight into the human condition. While these often add something to make a movie better, I hardly weigh them in at all.

Having said that, I enjoyed Lucy in spite of the fact that it seems to have been put together by someone who didn't have a clue of how to blend reality with science to create credible science fiction, and ended up with a movie that was over the top. It was embarrassingly simple as well as flawed, but I enjoyed watching an indestructible babe smashing her way through evil doers. That I did enjoy.

The Other Woman...I thought I posted about this here, but maybe not. I'm in such a fog these days. :/

I loved this movie, absolutely hilarious! I didn't expect to enjoy it that much, but really funny. About two women, one is the wife of a cheater, the other is the mistress. The two meet up, and realize there is a third woman to contend with...and the they plot to get him back. As far as plots like that go, they're usually not my thing, at least in the sense of a comedy. I tend to like thrillers, mysteries, etc. But, this was so funny, I was crying.

The premise of the movie had good potential, even though it was heavy handed with Christianity. It featured supporting roles by Ashley Judd and Ray Liotta, but they were acting in a stilted script. I felt sorry for them having to work in this film. The rest of the actors were unknown to me. Besides that, the movie is bad on so many levels. Two identical twins are separated at birth and each is born with musical talent, and while everything is lip sinked and not very convincing at that, it started out with some great old time rock and roll that got my juices flowing. I'm thinking, I might make it through this after all, but then the good music is replaced by some forgettable Ballad crap that doesn't work at all. It's reminiscent of early Evils Presley, with some really cheesy beach scenes that the one of the twins starred in, and the lead actor who plays both twins looks like a Presley imitator, and he gets drafted by the army. What a rip off.

The guys in the special effects studio apparently didn't know how to produce a scene where both of the twins being played by the same actor could appear on screen at the same time. When they finally meet, this problem which Hollywood does know how to deal with effectively, is just unconvincingly ignored.

The minster father thinks his son has a calling from the Lord to carry on the ministry, but the lad fights back and proves that the Lord's calling is his musical career. So everything works out according to God's will. The movie was so poorly written and directed, I'm guessing it was part of the same cheapo industry complex that has been churning out the second rate Christian movies of late, but with a slight nod to secularism. Actually, even though I knew I was taking a chance when I read the movie description before renting it, I still felt like I had been set up with a back door attempt by the Christian industry to save my soul from damnation. I could have lived with that except the movie would still have sucked anyway.

Fury‚Ä¶..not a bad flick, another war movie, the usual war is good, war is bad, war is righteous, war is evil stuff. I tried to pay more attention to the acting because the plot really was worn, I think Pitt did a nice job Laboof or whatever his name is was okay as a little preachy kid, some nice acting by nobodies. All in all, a nice flick when nothing else is on, its rainy or snowy and it won't get you all fired up and pumped like some other war movies so you can sleep pretty easily afterwards. About a 6 I thnk.

Grand Budapest Hotel 8/10. The reason is because I'm old enough to understand some of the culture around which the movie is portrayed; a turn of the century bourgeois culture being funneled against its will into the 20th century a la the upcoming war. the visible trappings of a decadent and decaying society run behind the scenes by an army of hotel managers, clerks, chefs, lobby boys, and so on. This is the era of the Orient Express that traveled from London to Istanbul, where the old rich of a dying era were traveling in utter luxury by train from one grand hotel to another. The producer/director was making a statement about that era and the death throes it was going through.

It was comedic and done with set pieces that were quite gorgeously dressed in keeping with the era. If you understand the intent of the writer and producer et al, it makes more sense. Wes Anderson also made the Royal Tenenbaums and the Aquatic Life of Steve Zissou, and Moonrise Kingdom. either you buy into his quirky premises or you don't. I like his work.

I was never aware of Wes Anderson until I saw Moonrise Kingdom, which offered a respite from the standard Hollywood formula approach. True Anderson has his own formula, very much so indeed, but it's a different formula, and I enjoy different. I liked Grand Budapest Hotel for the same reasons, and I'll be looking for more Wes Anderson in the future.

Wes Anderson's humor is so deadpan that you miss the intent sometimes There is never an outright laugh and the basis for humor is the situations, like the incidents on the train with the soldiers. But he does a good job of portraying personalities in quirky situations, and the humor works for me.

92% at Rotten Tomatoes from critics, and 84% from audiences. I got up and left the theater mid movie, leaving a total audience of two sitting in the seats. Granted it was a Tuesday afternoon. I'm not sure what the point of the movie was, but I'm quite sure I wouldn't have cared. It was much too artsy fartsy for my tastes as it apparently tried to delve into the existential angst that all Broadway actors can relate to. The actors acted like they were acting like actors.

Each of the main characters took turns delivering those long monologues of three pages of script delivered with intense anger and indignation. This always seems so unrealistic in my opinion, but plays use the device frequently. In real life, if someone was ranting on with such intensity telling me all I ever thought about was myself, bla, bla, bla, and the world wasn't just about me, bla, bla. I would just say, "Fuck off," and leave. I'm not sure what the other actors were doing while these scenes were being filmed. Maybe they went out for snacks and returned just before whoever was firing off his turn at monologue.

Maybe someone can explain to me why this film gets such high ratings, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care, even if I understood.

Good Grief! I might need to reread the book. I actually remember liking it, but that was many years ago. I don't remember the plot being so heavy handed. It's not unusual for Hollywood to exaggerate a message or concept, but they are usually more subtle, even attempting to be thought provoking. This brings the Libertarian ideology down like thunder with such intensity that it tends to drown out any evaluations you have going on in your head. It's Ayn Rand speaking in person: "Do not consider disagreeing with what I say. Any attempt to think on your own shall be considered an act of treasonous defiance."

Now aside from the transparent acting and the heavy handed plot, I did enjoy it, as I did the first two parts. It has a visceral appeal which I can't account for. It might have something to do with the black and white divide between good (Corporate greed in the best sense) and evil (the rest of the riff raff wanting to be fed and housed without lifting a finger). Apparently, there was nothing in between in Rand's ideology.

I would have rated it higher, just because I found enjoyment in it, but it's mostly for the niche group of Ayn Rand's followers. The fundamentals of the ideology are laid on much too thick to be seen as anything more than blatant propaganda.

I don't know whether to call it a movie about romance or pigeon racing. Both I suppose. No explosions or special effects. Just a solid movie that capitalizes on good story telling. I enjoy these kinds of movies that don't seem dependent on Hollywood formulas. I put this one off for awhile, but was delightfully surprised when I watched it tonight.

I oppose the war. But, I want to try to discuss the film on its own merits. Occasionally when I watch a movie, for whatever reason, I'm not able to "get into it", for lack of a better word. Obviously, whenever you watch a movie, you are, well, watching a movie. But you are supposed to, to some degree, feel as if the story is unfolding before you. But on occasion, I can't do that. I just feel like I'm watching actors saying lines. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad movie or bad acting. I'm not sure why I feel that way. But, through this movie, that is how I felt, I felt constantly aware that I was watching actors saying lines.

The Islamic enemies are portrayed one dimensional, they are just guys that have to be killed. The scenes while he is at home, you are to understand that he is becoming emotionally distant. The wife tells us this. But, I didn't feel like I was really being shown his change.

So, just from a movie perspective, I didn't particularly like it. I've seen worse. But, I can't recommend it.

Night Stalker‚Ä¶.Holy Crap gang. Now this here is pretty fucked up, but the acting‚Ä¶.Jake.. man,, he creeps you out within a couple minutes and it gets so bad and so creepy that you start to admire the guy. I am serious. This is a seriously wonderful script, sick, but wonderful script. You know the acting is good when the guy gives you the fucking willies. I think this is one of the best I have seen as far as acting and plot. Normally this is not my type of movie because creepy doesn't do it for me. But man, I am giving this a 10.

When you watch a lot of shit movies, occasionally one comes up that puzzles you for days after, perhaps forever. The Pink Angels is the latest of to do so for me. It's about a gay biker gang. beyond that, I am not sure how to describe it.

It has no plot. Anything that could have been a plot is dropped at some point when you're not looking. It's just composed of a series of things that happen. None of it adds up to anything. It doesn't say anything. It's not pro-gay. It's not anti-gay. That these bikers are homosexual is mostly used for comedy. They go into a shoe store and try on women's shoes while some old lady looks at them all shocked and shit. Yes, that kind of humor. The kind of humor that's not funny.

There are a couple threads that could have been developed into, I don't know, something but they don't. I have a theory on this which I'll get to in due time.

First thing that could have gone somewhere is there's mention of a drag ball that they're heading to. This really doesn't do much except keep them moving. But part of the reason this does not pay off is because of the baffling ending, which we'll get to.

Second is while the gay bikers (they never refer to themselves as Pink Angels in the film) are eating lunch at a rest stop picnic table (complete with table cloth, polished silverware, candles and candelabras, and champagne. Gays, amIright?) a group of straight bikers show up. They party for a bit until the straight guys pass out and the gay bikers doll them up with make-up and hair ribbons. The straight bikers act all mad about this and give chase with the stated purpose of killing them. But when they finally catch up with the gay bikers having cocktails in the hotel lounge in drag, they just sit down and talk with them and decide to go to that drag party with them.

Wait. What?

I guess they're all gay bikers? I really don't know. It isn't very clear.

There are a couple other nuggets that could have paid off. The leader of the gay bikers is apparently someone important. When they check in to their hotel, the nerdy desk clerk asks for a deposit. the leader says his signature is good enough. The clerk looks at his signature and enthusiastically agrees. So he's someone important or rich. Want to know who? So the fuck would I. This is never mentioned again.

Now we get to that fucking ending. This is going to take a bit, so stay with me.

While the nothing that happens in place of the plot unfolds, the film is intercut with scenes of this general character. His presence here is completely baffling because he doesn't have anything to do with the gays bikers or their quest to be the prettiest queen at the ball. These scenes were obviously filmed after the principle photography and added later because the movie needed a villain and shit. So this guys isn't general whatever his name is, he is the personification of "The Man" as they used to say back then. He is the establishment, the previous generation who does not understand or tolerate bikers, gay or otherwise, or anything else that might corrupt America's precious traditional values or some kind of shit.

His scenes don't do much except remind us that he's there for the most part. He does have one interesting scene where he cleans his handgun blindfolded while his secretary times him. He falls short of his own minimum time so he raises the minimum. This is kind of interesting because it's symbolic and shit. The Man is all judgmental but he can't even meet his own standards. So he's a hypocrite. It's pretty ham-fisted, but it's the only thing in this movie that has anything, and I mean anything going on beneath the surface. So I harp on it a bit.

So now we get to the ending, which I'm going to spoil in case anyone else want to see this movie and have the full impact of the ending.

[spoiler]Actually, the opening of the movie is the ending where the gay bikers in drag and their straight biker dates (one of whom is played by Dan "TV's Grizzly Adams" Haggerty) arriving at a mansion for the drag ball. There's a bunch of people here but it becomes obvious quickly this isn't the drag ball. The leader of the gay bikers takes of his wig and pulls the stuffing out of his bra shouting "Wrong wrong wrong wrong party party party party," with a cheesy echo effect. It's a weird place to start the movie, but it's all we get of the original ending before the general's scenes were added. So many questions unanswered. So many plot thread that do not pay off.

At the end, they arrive at the mansion but once inside one of the gay bikers is ushered into the general's office because he was the only actor who wasn't doing anything that Saturday. The general can't tell he's a dude until he takes his wig and reveal long hippy hair that was longer than the wig he was wearing, which spoils the effect. The general exclaims "faggots!" as if the very presence of homosexuals in the same room makes him rock hard. Then in the final shot, we see the general standing outside his mansion and all the gay bikers are being hanged from a tree!

Well, it's a bunch of fake-looking dummies that are wearing similar clothes. This is quite a sharp left turn for an otherwise light movie where we mostly see the spectacle of a gay dudes acting like stereotypes. I guess this is a convention of the biker movie genre since Easy Rider, which I haven't seen. [/spoiler]

In the final analysis, The Pink Angles is not a very good movie. It's interesting from a political standpoint in that back then gay, transvestite, transsexual, etc were all lumped into one because even sleazy exploitation filmmakers didn't understand the different hues of the homo rainbow and probably didn't care to educate the masses even if they did. Kind of like listening to old episodes of Amos and Andy in regards to civil rights.

Most of the running time is fluff that goes nowhere with the few potential plot points unresolved because of the added scenes and ending. So it becomes a mystery where those things were originally going and how bad they were that they completely changed the ending to a total downer.

Star Trek‚Ä¶ I admit a heavy bias as I grew up with the series and was always partial to the movies despite them being..er‚Ä¶..not so good, but I love this one, the "into the darkness" not so much but this one I love. The idea of presenting it as an alternative universe is a spectacularly obvious choice to maintain the original idea without infringing upon it. I truly enjoy watching this with enthusiasm. To me it is an 15/10. And if you disagree,,,,,fuck off.

They really brought to life the heartaches, triumphs, and injustices that Turing had endured. How he managed to keep it together is an enigma in itself. The man was awkward, but a hero nonetheless. He deserved better from the world.

Citizen Four (the Edward Snowden documentary)I'm not going to rate this like i would a movie, but I found it gripping and well put together. For your own opinion, you can watch it herehttp://www.anonsweden.se/?p=6925

OK, that's not a very high score, but the movie has some good things in it. If you have an interest in movies about music, the story of this young drummer might interest you. Of all the instruments, I don't have a lot of interest in drums, but given that almost every modern band has a drummer regardless of what other instruments compose the make up of the band, the drums are important, and some drummers occasionally catch my attention. The movie ends with a long drum solo that knocked my socks off. That was worth the rental price at Redbox.

The plot is an old worn out formula pitting good against evil, and there is no subtlety in the good and evil, as the movie exaggerates the evil to the point where it becomes unrealistic, almost bordering on absurd. It's as if the director was trying to hard to make a point. When a character is being a jerk, he's a jerk more than he needs to be. I wanted to say, "Yeah, OK, OK. I get it. This guy is a jerk." That and the fact that the plot is based on a time worn formula, are the weak points.

Having pointed that out, this film held my attention, and offered some nice surprises along the way. I liked the big band jazz music, and the drummer was excellent.

Every once in a while, I come across a a movie that utterly baffles me.

I could not tell you what happens in this movie.

Wait, I should explain that a bit. I can tell you what happens in this movie in that it's about a guy who wants to open a night club in an old industrial building with his (fingerquotes) "hot" new wife. He runs into a snag when there is toxic waste in the building and he's having trouble either getting it cleaned up or just making the bank take back the property and refund his money. This is bad for him because he had borrowed money from a mob guy to buy the place and he's putting the squeeze on our hero to get his money back. Tensions mount and then his wife leaves him and things somehow work out and he gets his night club.

That all happens in the movie, but I can't tell you what of that actually happens in the movie because the movies is made out of dream sequences.

I am not kidding. There appear to be dream sequences piled on top of dream sequences. I do not know what actually happens here. It's also why I said "things somehow work out" earlier because at that point, I had no idea what was going on.

The film is framed with scenes of the guy after he has his club up and running, so most of the running time is a flashback after he receives a letter from his estranged wife as he remembers everything that happened with trying to open the club. Early on there are weird editing choices. There is a scene where they first go to the building for the club after they'd bought it and suddenly it's months later and obviously things aren't going well. It's a jarring transition that would have been a minor mistake in a better movie. Here, it becomes a running theme.

At first I wasn't even sure if there were dream sequences and I thought he was just having an affair with a woman who happened to look like his wife. I wasn't even sure if she was played by the same actress or played by a similar-looking talentless bimbo. He called her by a different name, so I was confused until the end credits confirmed it was the same actress.

I fear I may be making this movie sound more fun than it is, though. If I were to tell you that at one point he comes home (he and his wife are living in the industrial building full of toxic waste because it's unsafe to have a night club here, but perfectly fine to live there. And no, the hallucinations are not explained by this) to find a blow up doll on the ceiling, which then floats to the floor that turns into the dream woman, you might thing that's pretty amazing, right?

Well, it isn't. It's dull.

No wait. It's DULL.

I can't even begin to express how dreary this movie is. I only noticed it was mostly dream sequences after I hadn't been paying attention for a while and suddenly realized I didn't understand what the fuck was happening. So I backed up and tried to pay better attention. I have wasted my life.

So in the end, it's just not a good movie. It's boring and only noteworthy for it's bizarre dream-ladened narrative and boobs. Not nearly enough boobs to make it worth it.

No mate, i was browsin movietube the other nite an i thought i would give it a wee watch, i was drunk but thats no excuse, nearly 2hours of my life gone for ever, iv'e seen a coupla nick cage movies that have been ok but this was really dire.................ill know better next time hopefully. :shifty:

I oppose the war. But, I want to try to discuss the film on its own merits. Occasionally when I watch a movie, for whatever reason, I'm not able to "get into it", for lack of a better word. Obviously, whenever you watch a movie, you are, well, watching a movie. But you are supposed to, to some degree, feel as if the story is unfolding before you. But on occasion, I can't do that. I just feel like I'm watching actors saying lines. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad movie or bad acting. I'm not sure why I feel that way. But, through this movie, that is how I felt, I felt constantly aware that I was watching actors saying lines.

The Islamic enemies are portrayed one dimensional, they are just guys that have to be killed. The scenes while he is at home, you are to understand that he is becoming emotionally distant. The wife tells us this. But, I didn't feel like I was really being shown his change.

So, just from a movie perspective, I didn't particularly like it. I've seen worse. But, I can't recommend it.

I just saw this last night. Or most of it anyway. I didn't make it to the end. It's rare I don't finish a movie and don't care.

I completely agree with your review. Normally, I cry at the drop of a hat in movies, and they don't have to subscribe to my own belief system to do so (Ala the fairly religious Le Miserables, I still bawl like a baby at the end, even though I obviously don't think that is what is going to happen when we die). If a movie is well done, I'm still able to sympathize with the characters, or at least feel SOMETHING about the story being told.

American Sniper was, simply put, not a good movie. It's bland, everything is very black and white. Or brown and white, as the case may be. Like CAF says, the Arabs are all one dimensional bad guys, not a one of them ever turns out to be anything but a bad guy. The hero is also very one dimensional. His wife and friends do (very, very briefly) say things indicating they aren't all gung-ho for the war, but none of that ever penetrates super snipers thick skull. He's got his duty, and he does it without much (if any?) hesitation. And he's always, always right. He never makes a mistake. Even Superman makes mistakes! Tha'ts why people love Superman, he's still human and errs.

Perhaps that is what I found boring about the movie, the complete lack of any moral ambiguity or real humanity out of the main character. I'd like to make it clear this is not the actor's fault, it is the way the character is written, and apparently the way the book is as well. Why he even has to see a councilor when he gets home is a mystery to me that makes no sense based on the rest of the movie. He doesn't seem to doubt himself or what he's done at all, ever. Why is he there? This entire part of the plot reads as false, inserted to try and add depth to the main character, but is transparent as a plot device to gain the audience sympathy and nothing more.

This movie is about a superhuman sniper who never makes mistakes, a great hero doing great things to protect his great country, that's it. There is no more substance here than that.

I missed the final bit of the movie, my daughter woke up crying, and I had to go tend to her. I told my husband to leave the movie going, I didn't care if I missed the end.

Hoooboy, where to start with this one! First off, I knew exactly what I was getting into. I knew it was bad, but I wasn't sure if it'd be so bad it's good or so bad it's horrible. The first half is just plain awful, but it did build up to actually pretty thrilling action scenes. All it all, it falls more on the so bad it's good side.

It's a completely braindead movie along the same lines as Doom or 300. If you're looking for something other than action and spectacle, you're not gonna find it. It's like John Carpenter's Vampires with witches instead of vampires.

Fun facts:* Hawkeye is Hansel. Jean Grey is a witch.* Surprisingly Wraith-like witches and holding pens. The Stargate Atlantis people should sue. :P* Everyone casually cusses and uses modern lingo like "that was awesome!".* The weapons are absolutely ridiculous for the time period. For any time period. We're talking automatic dual crossbows, some sort of collapsible rifle, and even a minigun in a setting where the primary building material is wood. WTF.* Midget witches are called mitches. Or at least, they should be.* Nude bathing scene. Bow chicka bow wow. (hat tip to SGOS)* Gretel is served some porridge that is "just right". *groans** No breadcrumbs, Gretel? *sad face** Witches fly through the dense forest instead of over it like Endor-based stormtroopers, with similar results.

Drinking game:* Take a shot whenever Hansel or Gretel is knocked unconscious, when Hansel falls down, or someone says the word witch.

If you're looking for something other than action and spectacle, you're not gonna find it. It's like John Carpenter's Vampires with witches instead of vampires.

Edit Fun facts:Don't forget the scene of bathing with the "good" witch in the magic healing pool. OK, that's not a fact, but it's at least worth the price of the rental. I wish that scene would have lasted a few more seconds, though, or maybe just rent a continuous loop of that 5 seconds of erotic bliss that lasts for an hour. And I'd pay $1.50 to see Gemma Arterton (Gretel) even with her clothes on.

Just saw the Babadook. Whatever expectations I had for the movie was turned on its head, what I thought would be a general monster movie, turned into something very deep, relatable, intense and altogether a very human movie/ Essie Davis' role in this was some of the best acting I've seen in a horror movie in a long, long time, I was on the edge of my seat because of her role. Great movie, might not be for everyone, but if you take what this movie aimed to be instead of what you expected it to be, your realize how good it is.

Back in the late 80s or early 90s John Dupont, heir to the Dupont fortune, shot and killed an Olympic wrestler who was living and training on his estate. I remember the incident, but didn't follow the story closely enough to know many details. It received quite a bit of news coverage. It was rumored (or perhaps decided. I can't remember) that Dupont was off his rocker. This is the account of that very disturbing story.

Steve Carrel plays John Dupont. It's the first time I've seen him in a serious role, and it was indeed serious. I think he may have smiled once in the film. In fact, his character scared me a little. He played an eccentric who didn't try to act intimidating or tough, but was weird enough to be frightened of, and he played the role well. Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo also star.

It lags for the first 20 minutes. I usually prefer the original Disney frame by frame animation, rather than live actors, but I liked this one. Stays pretty close the original Disney script. Has a lot of poignant moments, and is the quintessential happy movie. I usually get pissed off by people talking in the theater, but of course this is a children's story, and I rather enjoyed those little voices expressing wonder at various times during the movie.

I'm thought the 40 year old movie Westworld (Yule Brenner, Richard Benjamin, and James Brolin) was a wonderful movie built on the Michael Crichton plot of a theme park gone berserk, and I wished there would have been more of it. Vice at first seems like a ripoff of Westworld, but soon takes a slight twist and presents the same situation but more from the perspective of the androids than the guests of the park. I gave it points just because I loved seeing more of the Westworld scenario. It had lots more potential that wasn't developed, however, and I thought the characters were a bit wooden. I don't think it's as good as Westworld, which I'd recommend before this movie, even though Westworld was made in 1973.

The boxed set of cheapo DVDs I've been watching boast 20 classic films directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock is one of those directors whose work I have not seen. Not much, anyway. So this is a nice opportunity. Most, nay, all of it is his early work. Nothing older than 1940. It's got several of his silent flicks. It's educational.

The film in question today made me realize something: Alfred Hitchcock was the Michael Bay of his day. The scene that made me realize this was when the titular blackmailer flee from the police in the British Museum. Why in the museum? So we can have an exciting chase sequence in an exotic location. That's why, motherfucker. In the rough outline, it probably just said something like "the blackmailer is killed while trying to escape the police." In fact, the whole chase probably happened off-stage in the original play. But here we get a ten minute sequence that isn't very good, either because they actually filmed it in the museum and were limited in where they could film or this was on sets and were even more limited. In either case, the British Museum is an unimpressive-looking place. Just a bunch of boxy glass cabinets containing things you can't really make out in long shot.

But there are differences between Bay and Hitchcock. For one, Hitchcock gives a shit about telling a good story. Or at least telling a mediocre story well.

I am reminded of the 2005 film Derailed starring Clive Owen and Jennifer Anisto that was also about blackmail. Owen plays a sad sack who nearly starts an affair with some woman he meets on the bus, only they get attacked and robbed while they're in the hotel and then the robber starts blackmailing them both. So for a decent chunk of the running time, we have to watch this sad sack get toyed with by the blackmailer. That kind of shit pisses me off. I just can't stand that kind of shit. It's not entertaining to me. It's the opposite. I do not hate it, because hate is an attracting force. I loathe it. I find it repellant. And ultimately boring because nothing new is really happening. The whole movie is twiddling its thumbs until the unbelievable resolution. Why I watched the whole thing puzzles me in hindsight. Must have been married, I guess. She would have me watch all kinds of horrible shit with her.

Blackmail, on the other hand, does not have the blackmailer show up until nearly an hour into the film and then less than fifteen minutes later, the tables are turned on him and he has to go run into a museum and die.

That said, it's not a particularly interesting film. The plot isn't, I mean. These days that sort of thing has been done to death, see the above mentioned Derailed. The lead actress is not very good. I found her shrill and annoying rather than sympathetic. The only interesting thing she did was right after she'd killed her near-rapist, she's standing there in her underwear still holding the knife in a daze. It's a nice still photo, but this is supposed to be a motion picture.

Blackmail is historically significant in being Britain's first "talkie" according to Wikipedia. Also according to Wikipedia, it started as a silent production and switched to talkie later. This was obvious during the opening scene where the girl's police detective helps bust some guy for having a criminally bad comb over. This action-packed opening is also reminiscent of Michael Bay since it has fuck-all to do with the rest of the film. The whole sequence is done silently, making me think this was another silent film until the dialog started in a later scene. During this Hitchcock use an interesting technique used to add dialog to a silent picture.

You see, silent films weren't silent as they had a musical score but without dialog because they had trouble synchronizing the sound with the image. (this was an element in the film Singing In the Rain) While some theater smay have lacked a way to play recorded sound and would have a musician play along with the film (as seen in The Three Amigos, of all things) others could and dialog could be played as easily as any other sound.

In this case, Hitchcock filmed his actors from the back so you could not see their faces while the dialog was played. It still doesn't work very well, but it got the job done.

All in all, it's a nice enough film but probably not a very memorable one beyond the observations I've listed here.

John Wick 3/10I'm surprised it got 83% on the Tomato Meter. I thought it was pretty crappy. Keanu Reeves is some badass assassin who left the business to have a normal life with a wife. The wife dies. The son of his former boss kills the dog his wife got him. So, of course, he has to go kill everybody in his former organization. When his boss explains who this John Wick is to his son, the son says, "who is this guy, the Boogie Man?" The father says, no, Wick is the guy the Boogie Man is afraid of. Uh, yeah....

The Equalizer 8/10This one got 61% which seems low to me. It's another "former assassin who left the business gets back in business again". Except Denzel Washington is more fun to watch than Keanu Reeves. And, apparently, his character was always a good guy badass instead of a bad guy badass. So, he finds himself platonic friends with a hooker (Chloe Grace Moretz) that gets beat up by her bosses. When he goes to protect her, he gets more than he bargained for...

High Noon. 5/10A classic, highly regarded western that I had never seen before. I didn't feel it aged well. Maybe great for its time, but, not very sophisticated. The bad guy is a guy that was previously apprehended by the hero. Originally sentenced to die. Sent up north where his punishment was first downgraded to life. Then pardoned after 5 years. (Damn northern liberals, LOL) So, he comes to town with revenge on his mind. In a plot contrivance, the hero just got married to a pacifist Quaker and retired. And the new marshal wasn't due in town until the next day. So, for a day, the town was to be without an official marshal. When news breaks that bad guy is coming to town, he un-retires even though his new wife says she will leave him and leave town on the next train if he does so.

One plot point that just drove me crazy the whole movie... We're told that the bad guy and his gang are coming in on the noon train. Uh, no, they are already at the town's train station and for some reason are merely waiting until the noon train to come in before walking into town. In fact, for a while, the wife and the bad guys are all at the train station. She's there because she says she is leaving on the noon train. And them, just waiting for the noon train for no explicable reason. Did I miss some plot point there???? The whole movie I was saying "what the fuck are the bad guys waiting for???" Drove me crazy. Did I miss something?

So, the noon train comes. That is the queue for the bad guys to walk into town to try to kill the marshal. The bad guys are just plain one-dimensional bad guys that inexplicably like to wait at train stations. The hero had tried to find people to help take out the bad guys. Several people had said yes, but back out. So, he has to take on the bad guys by himself. Though his pacifist wife winds up successfully shooting one. Even though she presumably never shot a gun in her life. Bad guys die. Movie ends. Hope I didn't spoil anything.

High Noon. 5/10A classic, highly regarded western that I had never seen before. I didn't feel it aged well. Maybe great for its time, but, not very sophisticated.

I actually saw that in the theaters when it first came out. Mostly, I remember going to movies with my little friends. This is one of the few movies that I saw with my family. This thing was hyped big. Maybe mostly by my father; I'm not sure. It may have won an award. I was excited to see it. My father even more so. Afterwards, my father talked about how good it was. It was about cowboys, so I liked it pretty much, but apparently not as much as my father. I rented it a few years ago from Netflix. I have no idea why the movie got so much acclaim. I think maybe it had something to do with Gary Cooper and the theme song.

I actually saw that in the theaters when it first came out. Mostly, I remember going to movies with my little friends. This is one of the few movies that I saw with my family. This thing was hyped big. Maybe mostly by my father; I'm not sure. It may have won an award. I was excited to see it. My father even more so. Afterwards, my father talked about how good it was. It was about cowboys, so I liked it pretty much, but apparently not as much as my father. I rented it a few years ago from Netflix. I have no idea why the movie got so much acclaim. I think maybe it had something to do with Gary Cooper and the theme song.

High Noon was just a vehicle to get Cooper an Oscar. Good gritty drama, but simplistic by today's standards.

Fair enough. But, I'm still mind boggled about why we were told the bad guys were coming in on the noon train when they were at the local train station the whole time and simply walked into town when the noon train came. I'm still utterly baffled unless there was some plot point I missed...

Netflix recommends that I watch "God is Not Dead" with Kevin Sorbo because of my interest in Breaking Bad... am I missing a connection here?

However, with an average of 4.2 stars, they think I'll rate it 2.7. But, I watched the Bible Reloaded review and think I don't have to bother watching the whole thing.

Who wants to film God is Not Not Dead with me? We'll do a scene by scene reshoot with a Christian strawman played by... who's the opposite of Kevin Sorbo? Elvira? Sarah Silverman? ...yeah, one of those two.

Nudity? See, there's the problem. If you made a movie with copious nudity people would watch it. Make sure it is guilt laden, like the Cecil B. DeMille movies of yore. Lots of skin, gyrating dancers, all kinds of implied sininining, women moaning and orgasming off camera, make it all evil with the obligatory redemption at the end. I swear I'd watch it.

I watched a stack of movies on an international flight. A couple of movies that should appeal to your inner geek:

The Theory of Everything. 9.5/10Fantastic. Can't say enough about this. Loved it. Loved it. Loved it. It is about Stephen Hawking's life. It is more about his personal life. The actor playing Hawking did a great job of portraying him loosing his muscular control. It reminded me of My Left Foot. There was some religious discussion. His girlfriend is a Christian. She had a cute comeback, at least in her dialog in the movie. Since most religious comebacks are crappy, I have to give some props for the writer of the one line. (Or of the girlfriend if it really happened that way...) Minor little spoiler:

[spoiler]The girlfriend asks why he doesn't believe in God. He responds, "physicists can't have their equations muddied up with supernatural agents." The girlfriend retorts, "that sounds more like an argument against physicists than against God"[/spoiler]

The Imitation Game 9/10I loved this also. Just a touch less than The Theory of Everything. But, almost as good. I understand it takes fairly significant liberties with the actual history for dramatic effect. But, it at least in board strokes it tells the story of Alan Turing and his breaking of the German Enigma code in WWII. Stars Bennidict Cumberbach (sp?) as Turing. Turing was gay and he eventually committed suicide.

Fury 7/10WWII film about the final days of the war. Pitt is the commanding officer in a tank within Germany pushing back against the weakening German defenses. Very well filmed. I read on Wikipedia that the actors went through 4 months of preparation including a week of boot camp run by real Navy Seals. And the directory made them live in the tank for extended periods, eating, sleeping, shitting in the tank. It used real working WWII tanks for the filming. But it seemed to not have a real point, other than "war is hell". I'd say its worth watching. Its not particularly gory, but, there is pretty intense war violence depicted.

There was actually a fourth film I saw on that 14 hour flight, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. I remember thinking it was good, but, with the 3 above sticking in my mind, the fourth just completely eludes me... LOL

Interstellar with whats his face,,,,you know the voice of that car guy,,Mccannaehy or whatever, anyhow,,,,a nice flick kinda sciencey that goes off into human emotion as the base of the entire fuckin universe,,,so,,,,,,,meh. Still a nice watch and all, if you can remove the realization that space has no gravity so some of the gyrations they go through are for drama,,,but‚Ä¶meh,,,,,still HEY! its okay‚Ä¶‚Ä¶about a 5 outa 10 until the woo then it drops.

Interstellar with whats his face,,,,you know the voice of that car guy,,Mccannaehy or whatever, anyhow,,,,a nice flick kinda sciencey that goes off into human emotion as the base of the entire fuckin universe,,,so,,,,,,,meh. Still a nice watch and all, if you can remove the realization that space has no gravity so some of the gyrations they go through are for drama,,,but‚Ä¶meh,,,,,still HEY! its okay‚Ä¶‚Ä¶about a 5 outa 10 until the woo then it drops.

I actually got into an argument with my husband over weather or not there is really woo in this movie or not.

Fact, they went to great lengths to get the science (mostly) right. A physicist worked heavily on the script, as well as many other professional collaborations.

As to the woo stuff? [spoiler]I thought the same about the love stuff, crossing time and whatever. But my husband said first, it sounds nice and appeals to the masses, but the MESSAGE of the movie is not that. Love is not magic, it simply focuses one's mind on the subject of that emotion, like any other strong emotion. The construct the others opened, he just filtered it with his thoughts, which happened to be about his daughter for very realistic reasons. That was simply the filter through which he viewed the construct.

The message of the movie, the things that saves mankind is NOT love or magic or god or woo....it's science. Without understanding the full nature of gravity, no amount of love would have saved anyone. They needed a LOT of very advanced science even for plan B.

So I thought about it, and I agree. It's just a message of hope, and one of fear, too. We can and will reach the point in that movie someday, for real. But will we secretly be using science to plan to save the world? Or will we dismantle NASA and abandon our scientific advancements (like SOME people want us to?) and the possible future of mankind? People are pushing for that. [/spoiler]So IMO, this movie was PRO SCIENCE and kind of specifically PRO NASA, which I agree with fully. We always need to look forward to the future with hope, to explore the next horizon.

Anyway, Michael Caine (one of my favorite actors of all time) reciting Do Not Go Gently with the fate of the entire race in the balance was one of the most beautiful moments in movie history for me.

At any rate, I totally disagree. 10/10. check out their special feature on the science of Interstellar. It's out on DVD now so you might be able to find the special feature...out in the nets.It might change your mind a bit. :)

I thought the ending of Interstellar, whether you call it "woo" or not, was too silly. It was good up to that.

But, the fourth movie I saw on the plane, how could I forget!

Gone Girl 7/10I enjoyed it a lot. And there was some T&A in the movie, that was blurred on the airplane screen. Dammit. Though I didn't really care for the ending. I guessed who the primary villain was, but, I think that you probably were supposed to. But, the story doesn't even really get twisted until after the villain is revealed. After that it gets really twisted. Its a David Fincher film. LOL It has Neil Patrick Harris in a small role. He's not really like his Barney Stintson character. But, his character here is also straight. And when we see his high tech residence it did make me think of Barney. LOL.

The basic premise, if you haven't heard, is that Nick Dunne's (Ben Affleck) wife goes missing. Most people thought they had a happy marriage. But as the investigation proceeds, it seems it wasn't so happy after all. And maybe Nick killed her.

I just watched Interstellar last night, and thought it was OK. Some of the character development and the science fiction required me to stretch my imagination too much, but I did like it better than when I saw it the first time at the theater, when I was more or less unimpressed. The intersection of the dimensions was depicted in a way that didn't make sense to me: You can't talk to people in other dimensions, but you can communicate with them by moving small objects around in mysterious ways. Why can you do one thing, but not the other?

I understand not going anywhere without leaving something behind, but sacrificing crew members to change a circumstance with no guarantee that things will work out favorably, was just weird. It reminded me of Dorothy leaving Oz by deciding all she had to do was click her heels together: "Lets see we are stuck in space, and maybe I can kill another crew member to get me home, or alternately, I could try clicking my heels together. I think I'll try killing another crew member first."

Showed up at the Redbox last week, with Hugh Grant and Marissa Tomei. I wouldn't call it a romantic comedy, although it has elements of one. It's very light. I enjoyed being entertained without having to do a lot of deep thinking. It's just fun. Hugh Grant plays his usual Hugh Grant character. Marissa Tomei shines.

Pretty boring fantasy film about a girl and her mother with the gift to ... shame people and able to detect shame in people or some shit. Was pretty original angle, but the cinematography was amateurish at best.

High Noon. 5/10A classic, highly regarded western that I had never seen before. I didn't feel it aged well. Maybe great for its time, but, not very sophisticated. The bad guy is a guy that was previously apprehended by the hero. Originally sentenced to die. Sent up north where his punishment was first downgraded to life. Then pardoned after 5 years. (Damn northern liberals, LOL) So, he comes to town with revenge on his mind. In a plot contrivance, the hero just got married to a pacifist Quaker and retired. And the new marshal wasn't due in town until the next day. So, for a day, the town was to be without an official marshal. When news breaks that bad guy is coming to town, he un-retires even though his new wife says she will leave him and leave town on the next train if he does so.

Nudity? See, there's the problem. If you made a movie with copious nudity people would watch it. Make sure it is guilt laden, like the Cecil B. DeMille movies of yore. Lots of skin, gyrating dancers, all kinds of implied sininining, women moaning and orgasming off camera, make it all evil with the obligatory redemption at the end. I swear I'd watch it.

And fuck Kevin Sorbo.

Yeah. I think a lot of nudity will work for my movie. But, I'm not too sure about the Kevin Sorbo being fucked scene... but, I'll put it in there for you. What should be fucking him? Horse?

Finally got around to watching all four Tremors movies. The first one is a classic, the others not so much.

The original Tremors, for those who haven't seen it, and if you haven't stop reading this and go watch it right the fuck now. Jesus. Anyway, if you haven't seen it, it's a movie where Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward play two dimwitted handymen in a tiny Nevada desert town that gets attacked by giant underground monsters. Now go fucking watch it.

For the rest of us, the movie is brilliant because it does two things well. The first is it slowly reveals the monsters over time and the nature of the monsters keep us thinking the wrong thing so that more can be revealed. This keeps the mystery going and fresh for a decent chunk of the movie. The second is it establishes these characters are dumb, but they need to think their way out of their situation. They whole movie is they get into one situation, and then have to come up with a plan to get out of it. This was a delicate balancing act to have the characters do dumb, even childish things yet make it believable that they could think their way out of the situation.

Less successful were all of the sequels, even beyond the constraints of much smaller budgets for effects and actors. Part of it is I think the writers were working on the script for over a decade before the movie actually got made. Writer S. S. Wilson mentions that the original title was Land Shark until the SNL sketch forced him to come up with a new title. That was 1975. So the first film had a very nice polish that can only come from years of tinkering. It didn't hurt that they simply had better actors, either.

The sequels were made much, much more quickly and it shows. The scripts have some shining moments but most of the humor is more dumb than funny and the cleverness is more than a bit lacking, probably hitting a low point in the third movie when a new life stage for the monsters is christened "ass blasters." *sigh*

Overall, the sequels are enjoyable if disposable. I'll probably forget I saw the third one by tomorrow morning and in two weeks I'll remember I saw the fourth one but forget most of what happens in it.

So it's yet another unnecessary franchise that would have been better if it were just one movie, see also Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Matrix, Star Wars, and The Miracle Worker.

After seeing the first movie, I thought what would have been a good idea for a sequel would be to have Bacon and Ward's characters in another place dealing with a new monster. I thought an underwater monster would be a good way to go and call it Undertow or something stupid like that. Oh well.

I just watched Seventh Son wi jeff bridges an whatshisface who plays John Snow in Game of Thrones, he dies right at the beginning bythway, anyhow , Bridges plays the Gandalf type character who's fighting the Evil Witch and other assorted Demons & Witches etc...it was nobad ah must say, but Bridges daft accent sounded like a cross between Welsh & Heavy Devon, but apart from that it was ok. ill give it 7/10.

We Need to Talk About Kevin - 9/10This movie is just...good. The acting is amazing, the premise never feels forced or as though it has a politicized message at all, which is a real feat once you realize what the premise really is. Tilda Swinton is a good actress, but this is the best I've ever seen her.

The Hobbit: Battle of the Nine Armies, or Five Armies, or something. 1/10

What a pointless movie. The story had been told, but they still made another two hours of hacking Orcs and slashing gobblins. By the middle of the movie, I was so bored with an hour of hacking and slashing that I skipped ahead a half hour, and they are still hacking away on the same movie set, a castle up in the high mountains of New Zealand. Everybody kills 10 Orcs in rapid succession, but suddenly someone gets pooped and is in trouble. A friend comes to the rescue (every now and then a particularly troublesome Orc shows up). Now the helpful friend is subdued and is just about to get killed, but a surprise attack from an elf or wizard kills the Orc in the nick of time. Over and Over. Each main character gets in trouble but is saved at the last second by repeating the sequence. This drags on for what seems like most of the movie.

Finally I skipped to the end, and Bilbo is returning home in what is actually a welcomed, and compared to the rest of the film, a delightful 5 minutes before the final credits, which to me were more interesting than the movie itself.

1/10? Wow... I haven't seen the movie yet. But, I'm sure the production was well done with a decent score. That alone should be worth 2 or 3 points. But then again, we don't have an established rating scale with weighting.

The scenery was spectacular, and the village sets were charming, but the plot was non existent for the most part. It was just fighting. As far as I could tell, what little there was of the plot was unnecessary to support the battle scenes. I'm probably the exception. I kind of enjoyed the first Hobbit movie, but couldn't get into the others at all.

I didn't get much out of the Lord of Rings either. It's odd because I loved the book (The Hobbit) and I very much enjoyed The Trilogy that followed.

Watched Night and Day again, its a fun movie, got good action of course (mostly unbelievable) but Diaz and Cruise play well off each other. A nice fun movie when there is nothing else you want to watch. 5

Captain America: Winter Soldier. It was okay. Great action, but the rest of it was sorta luckluster verging on bad. Out of uniform, I honestly had a really difficult time believing that was Cap and that was Black Widow. No wonder they gave the bad guys the slip.

Bucky was awesome. No dialogue, just badassery. Villainous to the core. Then, in one scene, he turns good(ish). Wow, that was sudden.

The abandoned but completely still functioning apparently sentient mainframe really threw me for a loop. I mean, there's so much wrong with that sentence... Oh, and its tape drives are USB compatible, because why not. And then Black Widow yanks the thing out without hitting eject first. At least a couple times. Good thing there's nothing important on that drive, because doing that risks damaging the data on the thumb drive.

It's odd because I loved the book (The Hobbit) and I very much enjoyed The Trilogy that followed.

IIRC in the book, we don't get to see much of the fight. Bilbo gets knocked out during the first charge and find out what happened after he comes to.

Personally, I disliked the idea of the Hobbit movies when I heard it was going to be two movies, much less three. the story just isn't strong enough to hold that all up.

I saw about half the first movie and had to stop due to outside circumstances and never went back to see the rest because I thought it was a load of cold hamster vomit. It just cemented into place that prequels are a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea.

Most people watched the Hobbit for revisitng the Middle Earth and they knew that. That's why I enjoyed it too honestly, I never expected something really good. Dwarves...and Martin Freeman was enough for me as young Bilbo. I liked the casting. still too pretty, but hey could have been worse. I also wanted to slap Legolas in a few scenes.